
i ^ fe 



FRb:SENTt:U BY 



DEMOCRATIC 

CAMPAIGN 
BOOK 

CONGRESSIONAL 
ELECTION 

1906 

**Equal rights to all, special privileges 
to none'' 

ISSUED BY AUTHORITY OF THE 

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL 
COMMITTEE 

WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS 
Monscy Building, "Washington, D. C. 

CHICAGO HEADQUARTERS 
Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois 

PRICE, 25 CENTS 






THC SUN JOB PRINT, BALTIMORC 



EXPORT PRICES OF SEWING MACHINES. 



(Reproduced from Exporters' and Importers' Journal of May 

17, 1902, published by Henry W. Peabody & Co., of New 

York, for circulation in foreign countries only.) 



SEWING MACHINES. 



"Domestic" ScTvins" Machines. 

(New Domestic Sewing Machine Co.) 
High Award — The Gold Medal, Pan-American Exposition. 

Higliest Grade Higli Arm Foot Machine. 

No. 1 Machine, each . . $14 40 
No. 11/2 " " .". 15 10 

*No. 2 " " . . 15 80 

*No. 21/2 " " . . 16 30 

*No. 3 " " . . 17 20 

Disconiat, Machines for Mexico, Central and South 
America and the West Indies, No. 624; for the Australasian 
Colonies, Africa, British East Indies, Japan, Thilippine Is- 
lands and China, No. 50. 



*No. 4 Machine, each. 


.$19 00 


'■^No. 7 " 


. 2180 


*No. 8 " " . 


. 19 00 


Deslv Cabinet " . 


. 34 00 



Note — Walnut wood is used on all machines, 
Nvith * can also be had in oak if so oi'dered. 



but those 



Coronet Serving' Machines. 

(Made by the Davis Sewing Machine Co.) 
Style. 

No. 1, plain table, without cover, 1 drawer. Price each. $7 70 

No. 2, plain table with cover, 1 drawer. Price each .... 8 GO 

No. 3, end leaf table with cover, 1 drawer. Price each. . 8 80 

No. 37, end leaf table with cover, 3 drawers. Price each . 9 10 

No. 38, end leaf table with cover, 5 drawers. Price each. 9 65 

No. 39, end leaf table with cover, 7 drawers. Price each. 10 20 

No. 37, drop head, 3 drawers. Price each 9 G5 

No. 38, drop head, 5 drawers.' Price each 10 20 

Hand Machine, iron base. Price each 4 50 

Hand Machine, wood base. Price each 4 90 

Hand Machine, wood base 'and cover. Price each G 10 

For hand machines, without attachments, 15 cents less. 

Discount No. 79., 



The "Price Current Discount Sheet" of May 17, 1902, gives dis- 
count number 624 as "8%," number 50 "on application," and num- 
ber 79 "net." This makes the export price of the New Domestic 
No. 1, $13.25, and Nos. 4 and 9, $17.48. No such prices as these 
can be obtained in this country. Ordinary prices of the New 
Domestic range from $30 to $50. Cash wholesale prices to re- 
tailers are from about $20 to $30. 

The prices of the Coronet (Davis) machines speak for them- 
selves. The American prices are about 100% higher. 



DEMOCRATIC 



Campaign Book 

Congressional Election 



'9 



06 



'' Equal rights to all, special privileges to none' 



ISSUED BY AUTHORITY OF THE 



Democratic Congressional Committee 

Washington Headquarters, Munsey Building, Washington, D. C. 
Chicago Headquarters, Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois 



PRICE, 2? CENTS 



LEfl^Sjyr^i ncoUNCJLb 



BALTIMOSjpw; 
The Sun Book and Job Printing Oflace 
1906 



SUMMARY OF CONTENTS 



^ ^^°- 






V 



THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM. 

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY. 

THE TARIFF— ITS INIQUITIES. 

TARIFF HISTORY. 

REVENUE TARIFF AND PROSPERITY. 

TRUSTS AND COMBINES. 

EXPORT PRICES— LESS THAN HOME PRICES. 

GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP WITH THE TRUSTS. 

WAGES AND INCOMES. 

COST OF LIVING HIGHER. 

PRICES AND WAGES. 

EXPORTS OF MANUFACTURES. 

WAGES— DISASTROUS EFFECT OF McKINLEY TARIFF ON. 

TRUSTS AIDED BY McKINLEY TARIFF. 

SECRETARY FOSTER AND HIS FANTASTIC FINANCING. 

IRON AND STEEL AND THE TARIFF. 

THE LIFE INSURANCE SCANDAL. 

JUDGE PARKER'S CHARGE OF CORRUPTION PROVEN. 

MR. ROOSEVELT'S DENIAL OF CORRUPTION NOT TRUE. 

PANAMA CANAL SUPPLIES PURCHASED ABROAD. 

SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 

FIFTY MEN AND THEIR POWER. 

BRYAN ON ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION. 

THE COMMERCE ACT— ITS HISTORY. 

EXTRAVAGANT APPROPRIATIONS. 

DEFICIENCIES— HOW MADE. 

THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF. 

SCANDALS— NEW YORK CUSTOM HOUSE, ETC. 

DEMOCRATS AND ORGANIZED LABOR. 

ROOSEVELT'S INCONSISTENCIES. 

THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE "BIG STICK." 

INJUNCTION SUITS, CRIMINAL PROSECUTI9N, ETC. 

FARCICAL PROSECUTION OF THE TRUSTS. 

WHOLESALE PRICES, 1897-1905. 

STATISTICS ON WAGES. 

' ) J APPENDICES 

Comparison of Export and Home Prices. 
Operations of McKinley Tariff by Months. 
Yea and Nay Votes on Party Questions. 
A List of Trusts in the United States. 



Qift 
16 '06 



Democratic Campaign Book-1906 



PLATFORM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ADOPTED 
AT ST. LOUIS, MO., JULY 8, 1904. 

The Democratic party of the United States, in national conven- 
tion assembled, declares its devotion to the essential principles of 
the Democratic faith which bring us together in party communion. 

Under them local self-government and national unity and pros- 
perity were alike established. They underlaid our independence, 
the structure of our free republic, and every Democratic extension 
from Louisiana to California, and Texas to Oregon, which pre- 
serves faithfully in all the States the tie between taxation and 
representation. They yet inspire masses of our people, guarding 
jealously their rights and liberties, and cherishing their 
fraternity, peace and orderly development. They remind us of 
our duties and responsibilities as citizens, and impress upon us, 
particularly at this time, the necessity of reform and the rescue 
of the administration of government from the headstrong, 
arbitrary and spasmodic methods which distract business by 
uncertainty, and pervade the public mind with dread, distrust 
and perturbation. 

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 

The application of these fundamental principles to the living 
issues of the day is the first step toward the assured peace, safety 
and progress of our nation. Freedom of the press, of conscience 
and of speech; equality before the law of all citizens; the right 
of trial by jury; freedom of the person defended by the writ of 
habeas corpus; liberty of personal contract untrammeled by 
sumptuary laws; the supremacy of the civil over the military 
authority; a well-disciplined militia; the separation of church 
and State; economy in expenditures; low taxes; that labor may 
be lightly burdened; the prompt and sacred fulfilment of public 
and private obligations; fidelity to treaties; peace and friendship 
with all nations; entangling alliances with none; absolute 
acquiescence in the will of the majority, the vital principle of 
republics — ^these are doctrines which Democracy has established 
as proverbs of the nation and they should be constantly invoked, 
preached, resorted to and enforced, 

CAPITAL AND LABOR. 

We favor the enactment and administration of laws giving 
labor and capital impartially their just rights. Capital and labor 
ought not to be enemies. Each is necessary to the other. Each 
has its rights, but the rights of labor are certainly no less 
"vested," no less "sacred" and no less "inalienable" than the 
rights of capital. 



DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM. 



CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES. 

Constitutional guarantees are violated whenever any citizen is 
denied the right to labor, acquire and enjoy property or reside 
where interests or inclination may determine. Any denial thereof 
by individuals, organizations or governments should be sum- 
marily rebuked and punished. 

We deny the right of any executive to disregard or suspend any 
constitutional privilege or limitation. Obedience to the laws and 
respect for their requirements are alike the supreme duty of the 
citizen and the ofScial. 

The military should be used only to support and maintain the 
law. We unqualifiedly condemn its employment for the summary 
banishment of citizens without trial or for the control of elections. 

We approve the measure which passed the United States Senate 
in 1896, but which a Republican Congress has ever since refused 
to enact, relating to contempts in Federal Courts and providing 
for trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt. 

^~^ WATERWAYS. 

We favor liberal appropriations for the improvement of water- 
ways of the country. When any waterway like the Mississippi 
River is of sufficient importance to demand special aid of the 
Government, such aid should be extended with a definite plan of 
continuous work until permanent improvement is secured. 

We oppose the Republican policy of starving home development 
in order to feed the greed for conquest and the appetite for 
national "prestige" and display of strength. 

ECONOMY OF ADMINISTRATION. 

Large reductions can easily be made in the annual expenditures 
of the Government without impairing the efficiency of any branch 
of the public service, and we shall insist upon the strictest 
economy and frugality compatible with vigorous and efficient 
civil, military and naval administration as a right of the people 
too clear to be denied or withheld. 

We favor honesty in the public service, the enforcement of 
honesty in the public service, and to that end a thorough legisla- 
tive investigation of those executive departments of the Govern- 
ment already known to teem with corruption, as well as other 
departments suspected of harboring corruption, and the punish- 
ment of ascertained corruptionists, without fear or favor or 
regard to persons. The persistent and deliberate refusal of both 
the Senate and the House of Representatives to permit such 
investigation to be made demonstrates that only by a change in 
the executive and in the legislative departments can complete 
exposures, punishment and correction be obtained. 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH TRUSTS. 

We condemn the action of the Republican party in Congress in 
refusing to prohibit an executive department from entering into 
contracts with convicted trusts or unlawful combinations in 



DEMOGRATIG PARTY PLATFORM. 



restraint of interstate trade. We believe that one of the best 
methods of procuring economy and honesty in the public service 
is to have public officials, from the occupant of the White House 
down to the lowest of them, return as nearly as may be to Jeffer- 
sonian simplicity of living. 

EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 

We favor the nomination and election of a President imbued 
with the principles of the Constitution, who will set his face 
sternly against executive usurpation of legislative and judicial 
functions, whether that usurpation be veiled under the guise of 
executive construction of existing laws, or whether it take refuge 
in the tyrant's pleas of necessity or superior wisdom. 

IMPERIALISM. 

We favor the preservation, so far as we can, of an open door 
for the world's commerce in the Orient without any unnecessary 
entanglement in Oriental and European affairs, and without 
arbitrary, unlimited, irresponsible and absolute government 
anywhere within our jurisdiction. We oppose, as fervently as 
did George Washington himself, an indefinite, irresponsible, 
discretionary and vague absolutism and a policy of colonial 
exploitation, no matter where or by whom invoked or exercised; 
we believe with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that no 
government has a right to make one set of laws for those "at 
home" and another and a different set of laws, absolute in their 
character, for those "in the colonies." All men under the 
American flag are entitled to the protection of the institutions 
whose emblem the flag is; if they are inherently unfit for those 
institutions then they are inherently unfit to be members of the 
American body politic. Wherever there may exist a people 
incapable of being governed under American laws, in consonance 
with the American Constitution, the territory of that people 
ought not to be part of the American domain. 

We insist that we ought to do for the Filipinos what we have 
already done for the Cubans, and it is our duty to make that 
promise now, and upon suitable guarantees of protection to citi- 
zens of our own and other countries resident there at the time 
of our withdrawal, set the Filipino people upon their feet, free 
and independent, to work out their own destiny. The endeavor 
of the Secretary of War, by pledging the Government's indorse- 
ment for "promoters" in the Philippine Islands, to make the 
United States a partner in speculative legislation of the archi- 
pelago, which was only temporarily held up by the opposition of 
the Democratic Senators in the last session, will, if successful, 
lead to entanglements from which it will be difficult to escape. 

THE TARIFF. 

The Democratic party has been, and will continue to be, the 
consistent opponent of that class of tariff legislation by which 
certain interests have been permitted, through Congressional 
favor, to draw a heavy tribute from the American people. This 



6 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM. 

monstrous perversion of those equal opportunities which our 
political institutions were established to secure has caused what 
may once have been infant industries to become the greatest 
combinations of capital that the world has ever known. These 
especial favorites of the Government have, through trust methods, 
been converted into monopolies, thus bringing to an end domestic 
competition, which was the only alleged check upon the extrava- 
gant profits made possible by the protective system. These 
industrial combinations, by the financial assistance they can give, 
now control the policy of the Republican party. 

We denounce protection as a robbery of the many to enrich 
the few, and we favor a tariff limited to the needs of the Govern- 
ment, economically administered, and so levied as not to discrimi- 
nate against any industry, class or section, to the end that the 
burdens of taxation shall be distributed as equally as possible. 

We favor a revision and a gradual reduction of the tariff by 
the friends of the masses for the commonwealth, and not by the 
friends of its abuses, its extortions and its discriminations, keep- 
ing in view the ultimate ends of "equality of burdens and equality 
of opportunities," and the constitutional purpose of raising a 
revenue by taxation, to wit, the support of the Federal Govern- 
ment in all its integrity and virility, but in simplicity. 

TRUSTS AND UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS. 

We recognize that the gigantic trusts and combinations 
designed to enable capital to secure more than its just share of 
the joint products of capital and labor, and which have been 
fostered and promoted under Republican rule, are a menace to 
beneficial competition and an obstacle to permanent business 
prosperity. A private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable. 

Individual equality of opportunity and free competition are 
essential to a healthy and permanent commercial prosperity, and 
any trust or monopoly tending to destroy these by controlling 
production, restricting competition or fixing prices, should be 
prohibited and punished by law. We especially denounce rebates 
and discrimination by transportation companies as the most 
potent agency in promoting and strengthening these unlawful 
conspiracies against trade. 

We demand an enlargement of the powers of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, to the end that the traveling public and 
shippers of this Government may have prompt and adequate 
relief from the abuses to which they are subjected in the matter 
of transportation. We demand a strict enforcement of existing 
civil and criminal statutes against all such trusts, combinations 
and monopolies; and we demand the enactment of such further 
legislation as may be necessary to effectually suppress them. 

Any trust or unlawful combination engaged in interstate com- 
merce which is monopolizing any branch of business or produc- 
tion should not be permitted to transact business outside of the 
State of its origin. Whenever it shall be established in any 
court of competent jurisdiction that such monopolization exists, 
such prohibition should be enforced through ^comprehensive laws 
to be enacted on the subject. 



DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM. 



RECLAMATION OF ARID LANDS AND DOMESTIC 
DEVELOPMENT. 

We congratulate our Western citizens upon the passage of the 
law known as the Newlands Irrigation Act for the irrigation and 
reclamation of the arid lands of the West — a measure framed by 
a Democrat, passed in the Senate by a non-partisan vote, and 
passed in the House against the opposition of almost all Rejpub- 
lican leaders by a vote the majority of which was Democratic. 
We call attention to this great Democratic measure, broad and 
comprehensive as it is, working automatically throughout all 
time without further action of Congress, until the reclamation 
of all the lands in the arid West capable of reclamation is accom- 
plished, reserving the lands reclaimed for home seekers in small 
tracts, and rigidly guarding against land monopoly, as an 
evidence of the policy of domestic development contemplated by 
the Democratic party, should it be placed in power. 

ISTHMIAN CANAL. 

The Democracy when intrusted with power will construct the 
Panama Canal speedily, honestly and economically, thereby 
giving to our people what Democrats have always contended for — 
a great interoceanic canal, furnishing shorter and cheaper lines 
of transportation and broader and less trammeled trade relations 
with the other peoples of the world. 

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. 

We pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and lawful protec- 
tion of our citizens at home and abroad, and to use all proper 
measures to secure for them, whether native-born or naturalized, 
and without distinction of race or creed, the equal protection of 
laws and the enjoyment of all rights and privileges open to them 
under the covenants of our treaties of friendship and commerce; 
and if under existing treaties the right of travel and sojourn is 
denied to American citizens, or recognition is withheld from 
American passports by any countries on the ground of race or 
creed, we favor the beginning of negotiations with the govern- 
ments of such countries to secure by new treaties the removal of 
these unjust discriminations. We demand that all over the world 
a duly authenticated passport issued by the Government of the 
United States to an American citizen shall be proof of the fact 
that he is an American citizen and shall entitle him to the treat- 
ment due him as such. 

ELECTION OF SENATORS BY THE PEOPLE. 

We favor the election of United States Senators by the direct 
vote of the people. 

STATEHOOD FOR TERRITORIES. 

* We favor the admission of the territory of Oklahoma and the 
Indian Territory. We also favor the immediate admission of 
Arizona and New Mexico as separate States, and a territorial 
government for Alaska and Porto Rico. 



8 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM. 

We hold that the officials appointed to administer the govern- 
ment of any territory, as well as with the district of Alaska, 
should be bona fide residents at the time of their appointment of 
the territory or district in which their duties are to be performed. 

CONDEMNATION OF POLYGAMY. 

"We demand the extermination of polygamy within the juris- 
diction of the United States and the complete separation of church 
and State in political affairs. 

MERCHANT MARINE. 

We denounce the ship subsidy bill recently passed by the 
United States Senate as an iniquitous appropriation of public 
funds for private purposes and a wasteful, illogical and useless 
attempt to overcome by subsidy the obstructions raised by Repub- 
lican legislation to the growth and development of American 
commerce on the sea. 

We favor the upbuilding of a merchant marine without new or 
additional burdens upon the people and without bounties from 
the public treasury. 

RECIPROCITY. 

We favor liberal trade arrangements with Canada, and with 
peoples of other countries, where these can be entered into 
with benefit to American agriculture, manufactures, mining or 
commerce. 

MONROE DOCTRINE. 

We favor the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine in its full 
integrity. 

ARMY. 

We favor the reduction of the army and of army expenditure 
to the point historically demonstrated to be safe and sufficient. 

PENSIONS AND OUR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS. 

The Democracy would secure to the surviving soldiers and 
sailors and their dependents generous pensions, not by an 
arbitrary executive order, but by legislation which we grateful 
people stand ready to enact. Our soldiers and sailors who defend 
with their lives the Constitution and the laws have a sacred 
interest in their just administration. They must therefore share 
with us the humiliation with which we have witnessed the exalta- 
tion of court favorites, without distinguished service, over the 
scarred heroes of many battles; or aggrandized by legislative 
appropriations out of the treasuries of a prostrate people, in 
violation of act of Congress, which fixes the compensation and 
allowances of the military officers. 

CIVIL SERVICE. ^ 

The Democratic party stands committed to the principles of 
civil service reform, and we demand their honest, just and 
impartial enforcement. We denounce the Republican party for 



DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM. 9 



its continuous and sinister encroachments upon the spirit and 
operation of civil-service rules, whereby it has arbitrarily 
dispensed with examinations for office in the interests of favorites 
and employed all manner of devices to overreach and set aside 
the principles upon which the civil service was established. 

SCHOOLS AND RACE QUESTIONS. 

The race question has brought countless woes to this country. 
The calm wisdom of the American people should see to it that 
it brings no more. To revive the dead and hateful race and 
sectional animosities in any part of our common country means 
confusion, distraction of business and the reopening of wounds 
nov/ happily healed. North, South, East and West, have but 
recently stood together in line of battle from the walls of Peking 
to the hills of Santiago, and as sharers of a common glory and 
a common destiny we should share fraternally the common 
burdens. We, therefore, deprecate and condemn the bourbon- 
like, selfish and narrow spirit of the recent Republican conven- 
tion at Chicago, which sought to kindle anew the embers of 
racial and sectional strife, and we appeal from it to the sober 
common sense and patriotic spirit of the American people. 

THE REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION. 

The existing Republican administration has been spasmodic, 
erratic, sensational, spectacular and arbitrary. It has made 
itself a satire upon the Congress, the courts and upon the settled 
practices and usages of national and international law. 

It summoned the Congress into hasty and futile extra session, 
and virtually adjourned it, leaving behind in its flight from 
Washington uncalled calendars and unaccomplished tasks. 

It made war, which is the sole power of Congress, without its 
authority, thereby usurping one of its fundamental prerogatives. 
It violated a plain statute of the United States as well as plain 
treaty obligations, international usages and constitutional law; 
and has done so under pretence of executing a great public policy, 
which could have been more easily effected lawfully, constitu- 
tionally and with honor. 

It forced strained and unnatural constructions upon statutes, 
usurping judicial interpretation and substituting Congressional 
enactment decree. 

It withdrew from Congress their customary duties of investi- 
gation which have heretofore made the representatives of the 
people and the States the terror of evildoers. 

It conducted a secretive investigation of its own and boasted 
of a few sample convicts, while it threw a broad coverlet over the 
bureaus which had been their chosen field of operative abuses, 
and kept in power the superior officers under whose administra- 
tion the crimes had been committed. 

It ordered assault upon some monopolies, but, paralyzed by its 
first victory, it flung out the flag of truce and cried out that it 
would not "run amucK"-^leaving its future purposes beclouded 
by Us vacillations. 



10 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY. 

APPEAL TO THE COUNTRY. 

Conducting the campaign upon this declaration of our prin- 
ciples and purposes, we invoke for our candidates the support, 
not only of our great and time-honored organization, but also the 
active assistance of all of our fellow-citizens who, disregarding 
past differences upon questions no longer in issue, desire the 
perpetuation of our Constitutional Government as framed and 
established by the fathers of the republic. 



FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY. - 

JEFFERSON'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 

"About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which 
comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper 
that you should understand what I deem the essential principles 
of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape 
its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest 
compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all 
its limitations. 

"Equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or 
persuasion, religious or political. 

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, 
entangling alliances with none. 

"The support of the State governments in all their rights, as 
the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns 
and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies. 

"The preservation of the General Government in its whole 
constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and 
safety abroad. 

"A jealous care of the rights of election by the people — a mild 
and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of 
revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided. 

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority — the 
vital principle of republics from which there is no appeal but to 
force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism. 

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace, and for 
the first moments of war, till the regulars may relieve them. 

"The supremacy of the civil over the military authority, 

"Economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly 
burdened. 

"The honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of 
the public faith. 

"Encouragement of agriculture and commerce as its handmaid. 

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses 
at the bar of public reason. 

"Freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of the 
person under the protection of habeas corpus; and trials by juries 
impartially selected. 

"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone 
before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and 
reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our 



WHY I AM A DEMOCRAT. 11 

heroes have been devoted to the attainment. They should be 
the creed of our political faith — the text of civil instruction — ^the 
touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and 
should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let 
us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which leads 
alone to peace, liberty and safety." 



WHY I AM A DEMOCRAT. 

I am a Democrat because the eternal and immutable principles 
of Democracy are necessary to a free government, which vary 
only in their application and expression as the needs and exigen- 
cies of our country demand. 

I am a Democrat because Democracy means the rule of the 
people; the rule of the majority, freely and fairly expressed. 

I am a Democrat because the Democracy of the United States 
endorses and has always endorsed the enduring Declaration of 
Independence, in which amongst other things the fathers of the 
Republic particularly declared that: 

The right of petition is ours and sacred. 

All men are created equal * * * with certain Inalienable 
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of 
Happiness. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party stands for 
"Equal Rights to All and Special Privileges to None;" which is 
the natural corollary of the great Declaration. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party is for the 
preservation of all the rights granted to the Federal government 
by the Constitution, and for the preservation of the reserved 
rights of the States, and especially for the right of the people to 
alter or change the fundamental law when they deem it necessary. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party stands for Home 
Rule — the right of each organized community to manage its own 
local affairs as may seem best to the majority of its citizens. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party stands for the 
least taxation, national, state and local, that will support the 
Federal, State and local governments honestly and economically 
administered. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party opposes and has 
always opposed the centralization of power in the hands of the 
Federal government, other than those powers granted by the 
Constitution. 

I am a Democrat because, the Democratic party is broad enough 
for all men to enlist under its banner, who believe in and endorse 
its fundamental principles, and yet catholic enough to shelter 
with its everlasting wings the rich and powerful and the poor 
and needy, where both labor and capital and all conditions of 
men, can work out their own salvation with absolute equity. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party stands for the 
equal right of every eitizea in his person and property and in 
their management to p.cliieve wUat his own efforts entitle Urn to, 



12 FIRST TARIFF ACT, 1789. 

without anyone to molest or make afraid, if he does not commit 
aggressions upon the equal rights of another, and this is all from 
which he ought by law to be restrained. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party has always 
opposed and is today fighting monopolies and trusts and the 
moneyed oligarchy, even as it fought and vanquished the political 
oligarchy under Jefferson and the moneyed oligarchy under 
Jackson. And because I believe it is the only party honestly 
fighting the UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS AND CORPORA- 
TIONS — made possible by law, entrenched behind a prohibitive 
tariff, buttressed by subsidies and fostered by special rates and 
rebates, plundering the people with the one hand, while with the 
other they reach for foreign conquest and sell their product 
cheaper abroad than they sell it to our own tariff-taxed people. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party, in all its 
enviable history since the foundation of the Republic, has always 
been the bulwark of the people against special privilege and the 
defender of the many against the power of money in the hands 
of the few. 

I am a Democrat because the Democratic party is conservative 
enough to hold fast to that which is good and radical enough to 
push all necessary reforms. 



FIRST TARIFF ACT, 1789. 

The first tariff act passed by Congress was in April, 1789. It 
was approved by President Washington. It took effect July 4, 
1789, and was entitled: 

"An Act for Laying the Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandise" 
and began with this preamble : 

Whereas, It is necessary for the support of Government, for the dis- 
charge of the debts of the United States and the encouragement and 
protection of manufactures, that duty be paid on goods, wares and 
merchandise imported. 

Be it enacted, etc.: 

That from and after the first day of August next ensuing the sev- 
eral duties hereinafter mentioned shall be laid on the following goods, 
wares, and merchandise imported into the United States from any 
foreign port or place, that is to say: 

Because of this preamble the Republicans refer to this act with 
unremitting joy. The Republican Campaign Book of 1896 con-' 
tains the following: 

The first revenue law passed by the United States after the 
adoption of the Constitution, was one prepared under a resolution 
of Mr. Madison. It passed the House May 14, and the Senate 
June 12; was sent to a conference, passed both Houses, and was 
approved by President Washington and became a law July 4, 
1789. The preamble of this law recited: "Whereas it is neces- 
sary for the support of the Government and the encouragement 
and protection of manufactures," etc. This act provided for both 
specific and ad valorem duties. Among the former were: Boots, 
50 cents per pair; tallow candles, 2 cents a pound; coal, 2 cents 
per bushel, etc. James Madison, who has been called the "father 
of the Constitution," was also the legislative "father of protection" 
to American manufactures. 



FIRST TARIFF ACT, 1789. 10 

Here is the Act in question, fixed by the "fathers" for the 
"protection of manufactures" — "infants" then, as they are in 1906: 

FIRST TARIFF ACT TOOK EFFECT JULY 4, 1789. 

Articles. U. S. Act, April, 1789 

Wines and liquors — 

Madeira wine, gallon 18c 

Other wines, gallon 10c 

Beer, ale, porter, gallon 5c 

Ditto, in bottles, dozen 20c 

Jamaica rum, gallon 10c 

Other rum, gallon 8c 

Distilled spirits, gallon 8 to 10c 

Brown sugar, pound Ic 

Loaf sugar, pound 3c 

Molasses, gallon 2i/^c 

Coffee, pound 2i/{>c 

Boliea tea, poimd 6 to 8c 

Other teas, pound 10 to 16c 

Salt, bushel 10c 

Cocoa, pound Ic 

Chocolate, pound 5c 

Snuffs, pound 10c 

Manufactured tobacco, pound 6c 

Earthen and China w^are 10% 

Glassware 10% 

Looking glasses 10% 

Window glass 10% 

Soap, pound 2c 

Beef, pound 5% 

Pork, pound 5% 

Nails and spikes, pound Ic 

Cordage and cables, cwt .-. . 75c 

Twine, cwt 90c 

Boots, pair 50c 

Shoes, of leather, pair 7c 

Shoes, of stuff, pair 5% 

Shoes, of silk, pair 10c 

Four-wheeled carriages, each 15% 

Two- wheeled carriages, each 15% 

Harness and bridles 7%% 

Scythes, dozen 5% 

Iron shovels, dozen 5% 

Hoes, dozen 5% 

Axes, dozen 5% 

Anchors 7 % % 

Bar iron, cwt 7V2% 

Hemp^ cwt 60c 

Iron pots and kettles, cwt 7V2% 

Iron stoves, cwt 7 1/^ % 

Iron castings, cwt 7%% 

Iron hollowware, cwt 7%% 

Tools 5% 

Candles, pound 2c 

Butter 5% 

Cheese 4c 

Linseed oil, gallon. . 5% 

Coal, bushel 2c 

Miscellaneous manufactures of metals 5% 

Wrought gold 5% 

Wrought silver 5% 

Brass Free 

Copper , ,, ^ 5% 

Lead , ,.,,,,,.,. " Free 

Tin Free 



14 FIRBT TARIFF ACT, 1789. 

FIRST TARIFF ACT TOOK EFFECT JULY 4, 1789— Continued. 

Articles. U. S. Act, April, 1789 

Tinplate 7^/2% 

Sheeps' wool ■. Free 

Cotton wool Free 

Cloths 5% 

Ready-made clothing 7 % % 

Beaver hats, each 7 ^^ % 

Castor hats, each 7%% 

Felt hats, each 7% % 

Spelling books and primers 5% 

Novels 5% 

Paperhangings 7i/4% 

Whips 71/2% 

Canes 1^2% 

Household furniture 5% 

Wool and cotton cards, per dozen 50c. 

Leather, pound 7 14 % 

Leather manufactures 7 % % 

Horn combs 5% 

Playing cards, dozen packs - $1.20 

The Congress which passed this act met April 6, 1789, and two 
days thereafter the House, in the committee of the whole on the 
state of the Union, took up the subject of the tariff, introduced by 
James Madison, who, in part, said: 

"I take the liberty, Mr. Chairman, at this early stage of the busi- 
ness, to introduce to the committee a subject Avhich appears to me to 
be of the greatest magnitude; a subject, sir, that requires our first at- 
tention and our united exertions. * * * The deficiency in our 
Treasury has been too notorious to make it necessary for me to animad- 
vert upon that subject. Let us content ourselves with endeavoring to 
remedy the evil. To do this a national revenue must be obtained; 
but the system must be such a one that, while it secures the object of 
revenue, it shall not ie oppressive to our constituents. Happy it is 
for us that such a system is within our power, for I apprehend that 
both these objects may be obtained from an impost on articles im- 
ported into the United States. 

"In pursuing this measure, I know that two points occur for our 
consideration. The first respects the general regulation of commerce, 
which, in my opinion, ought to be as free as the policy of nations 
will admit. The second relates to revenue alone, and this is the point 
I mean more particularly to bring into the vieio of the committee. 
* * * The proposition made on this subject by Congress in 1783, 
having received generally the approbation of the several States of the 
Union in some form or other, seems well calculated to become the 
basis of the temporary system which I wish the committee to adopt." 



THE DINOLEY TARIFF. 



15 



THE DINGLEY TARIFF. 



Articles. 




Specific rates of duty. 


o o 

5^ 


Computed aver- 
age ad valorem 
rates of duty. 
(Fiscal year 
1905.) 




Percent. 


Per Cent. 


Wines and liquors- 
Madeira wine 


.Gal. 

it 
.doz. 
• ^.?^- 
'. lb. 

. bu. 


Still wines 




49.66 


Other wines 


Champagne and other 
sparkling 


. 




53.76 
42.62 
69.37 
125.71 

56.65 


Beer, ale, porter 


In bottles or jugs, per 
gallon, 40 cents 





Ditto, in bottles 

Jamaica rum 


In other coverings, per 
gallon, 20 cents 

■Per gallon, $3. 25 





Distilled spirits 

Brown sugar 


Sugar under No. 16 D. S. in 
color, per pound from 
.95 ct. to 1.825 cts., accord- 
ing to degree 




Loaf sugar 


Sugar above No. 16 D. S. 
(refined) per pound, 1.95 






55.88 
19.31 


Molasses 

Coffee 


Per gallon, 8 and 6 cents. . . 
Free 


20 


Boheatea 


Free 






Other teas 


Free 






Salt 


(Per 100 lbs. in bags or 
< sacks, 12 cents 






33 32 




{ Per 100 lbs in bulk, 8 cents 




83 16 


Cocoa 




16.70 

26.37 

100.72 

100.51 
58.96 
57.33 


Chocolate * . . . 


....; :■....:::::;;■. 










Mfd. tobacco 


Per pound, 55 cents (not 
including cigars, che- 




Earthen and chinaware 












■ 




f Mirrors not exceeding 

j 144 square inches 

1 Looking-glass plates ex- 
L ceeding 144 sq. inches. . 


45 






67.80 


Window glasses 






53.91 
27.11 
20.44 
14.65 
9.51 
16 95 


Soap 


.cwt. 
.pair 

.each 
. doz 






Beef 


Per pound, 2 cents 


■ 


Pork 

Nails and spikes 


Per pound, 2 cents 




Cordage and cables. ... 


Per pound, 1 and 2 cents.. . 


.... 


Twine 






44.56 


Boots 




25 
25 
50 

60 
60 
45 
35 
45 
45 
45 
45 
45 


Shoes, of leather 






" stuff 


(Cotton 

< Wool, per pound, 44 
(* cents and 




silk 




l-wheeled carriages .. 


Metal, chief value 




2-wheeled carriages . . . 


Wood, chief value 




Harness and bridles . . . 






Scythes 












Hoes 






Axes 










38.18 
29.09 

12 72 


Bar iron 


.cwt. 






Hemp .. 






Iron pots and kettles. 


Per pound, 8-10 cent 






Iron stoves 


Per pound, 8-10 cent 






Iron castings 

Iron hollow- ware 






16.82 
35 71 


Per pound, 2 cents 




Tools 


Of metal 


45 
25 
20 






. lb. 


/Wax 




Candles . . 


1 All other , , 




gutter 




g8.95 


Oheese. ^.-rrrM- 




Pep ppuiia, 6 cents, ..,,,,,, 


,.,,.,,,,:,., 



16 



THE DINGLEY TARIFF. 



THE DINGLEY TARIFF -continued. 



Articles. 



Specific rates of duty. 



Linseed oil gal 

Coal t)u. 



Miscel. man'f r's of metals. 

Wrought gold 

Wrought silver 

Brass (old brass free) 

Copper (unman'f 'd free) — 

Lead 

Tin (unman'f 'd free) 

Tin plate 

Sheep's wool 

Cotton (raw free) 



Cloths , 



Ready-made clothing 

Beaver hats each 

Castor hats " 

Felt hats " 

Spell, books & primers 

Novels 

Paper hangings 

Whips 

Canes 

Household furniture 

Wool and cotton cards.. pair 
Leather lb. 

Leather manufactures 

Horn combs — 

Playing cards doz. packs 



Per gallon, 30 cents 

[ Bituminous and shale 

I per ton, 67 cents 

1 Slack or culm of coal 

L per ton, 15 cents 



Manufactures 

Manufactures 

Ore and manufactures. 

Manufactures 

Per pound, 1)4 cents. .. 



Manufactures 

f Cotton... .. .■ 

j Fibre 

1 Silk 

LWool 

f Cotton ■ 

J Silk , 

I Wool, per pound, 
L cents and 

i Fur hats 



Wool, 44 cts. per pound and 



(Harness). .. 
(Sticks for). 
Free 



j Gloves 

I All other n. e. s. 



Per pack, 10 cents and. 



o o 



© 0+3 03 
+s '' O <S 
j2 ^ fH-— r-i 



Per Cent. 



60 



Per Cent. 

52.06 
21.59 
10.74 



45.21 
15.75 
82.25 
.45 
53.12 
46.64 
54.26 
38.55 
44.73 
55.20 
100.02 



60 



82.20 
52.26 
81.50 



17.16 

52.58 



150.67 



TARIFF RATES. 



17 



TARIFF RATES. 



THE AVERAGE RATES OF DUTY FOR THE YEAR ON THE 
THINGS ACTUALLY TAXED. 



Year. 


Per cent. 


1791 .. 


15.34 


1792 .. 


11.54 


1793 .. 


14.68 


1794 .. 


17.10 


1795 .. 


11.21 


1796 .. 


12.02 


1797 .. 


15.60 


1798 .. 


19.99 


1799 .. 


19.70 


1800 ... 


17.42 


1801 ... 


16.61 


1802 .. 


30.67 


1803 .. 


20.52 


1804 ... 


22.76 


1805 ... 


19.19 


1806 .. 


21.22 


1807 .. 


20.09 


1808 ... 


37.22 


1809 .. . 


18.80 


1810 ... 


14.07 


1811 ... 


35.62 


1812 ... 


13.07 


1813 ... 


69.03 


1814 ... 


46.79 


1815 .. . 


6.84 


1816 ... 


27.94 


1817 ... 


32.90 


1818 ... 


16.78 


1819 ... 


29.81 


1820 . . . 


26.59 


1821 ... 


30.99 


1822 .. . 


27 13 


1823 ... 


39.21 


1824 .. . 


50.21 


1825 ... 


50.24 


1826 ... 


49.26 


1827 53.76 


1828 47 59 


1829 54.18 


1830 61.69 



Year. Per cent. 

1831 47.88 

1832 42.96 

1833 38.25 

1834 40.19 

1835 40.38 

1836 34.94 

1837 29.18 

1838 41.33 

1839 31.77 

1840 34.39 

1841 34.56 

1842 25.81 

1843 29.19 

1844 36.88 

1845 34.45 

1846 33.35 

1847 28.02 

1848 26.28 

1849 26.11 

1850 27.14 

1851 26.63 

1852 27.38 

1853 25.93 

1854 25.61 

1855 26.82 

1856 26.05 

1857 22.45 

1858 22.43 

1859 19.56 

1860 19.67 

1861 18.84 

1862 36.20 

1803 32.62 

1864 : 36.69 

1865 47.56 

1866 48.35 

1867 46.67 

1868 48.63 

1869 47.22 

1870 47.08 



Year. Per cent. 

1871 43.95 

1872 41.35 

1873 38.07 

1874 38.53 

1875 40.62 

1876 44.74 

1877 42.89 

1878 42.75 

1879 44.87 

1880 . .43.48 

1881 43.20 

1882 42.66 

1883 42.45 

1884 41.61 

1885 45.86 

1886 45.55 

1887 47.10 

Estim't'd aver- 
age rate un- 
der Mills bill 42.49 

1888 45.63 

1889 45.13 

1890 44.41 

1891 ;46.28 

1892 48.71 

1893 49.58 

1894 50.06 

1895 41.75 

1896 39.95 

1897 42.17 

1898 48.75 

1899 52.07 

1900 49.24 

1901 49.04 

1902 49.78 

1903 49.03 

1904 48.77 

1905 45.24 



THE HISTORY OF TARIFF CHANGES. 

RATES OF DUTY LEVIED ON ARTICLES OF NECESSITY 
UNDER ALL TARIFFS SINCE 1791 TO 1883. 



Tariff Act of 
the Year 



1789 

1790-91. . 
1793. ... 
1794-5.... 
1797-1800. 
1804-7-8 . . 
1813-15... 

1816-19. . . 
1834-25... 
1828-30. . . 
1833 

im\\lll 

1843 

1846 

1857 

1861 

1867 

1883 





M 




m 


^ 


1=1 _• 


§ft 


6 ft 


1^ 
Is 


iP. 




i 

o 

D 

Is 


II 


ft 

o 
o 

^ © 


Si 

a ® 


a 
S 

CI 

<» . 
§1 




3 o 

CI . 
58 Cl 


=26 


i=l aj 


o 

i 


P^ 


u 


« 


^ 


^ 


is: 


^ 


1— 1 


CQ 


^ 


o 


free 


5 


free 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 


10 


3c 


7X 


free 


5 


5 


5 


5 


ny> 


5 


5 


VIA 


3c 


7>^ 


free 


VA 


7X 


free 


IX 


10 


10 


1% 


15 


3c 


13'^ 


free 


10 


10 


free 


A^lVo 


15 


15 


Vl% 


30 


3c 


15 


free 


13)^ 


13^ 


free 


13K 


15 


15 


Vl% 


30 


3c 


17>^ 


free 


15 


15 


free 


15 


17X 


17^ 


!5 


33i^ 


6c 


35 
n.o.p. 


free 


30 
n.o.p. 


30 


free 


30 


35 


a5 


30 


45 


8c 


30 


free 


25 


35 


free 


30 


30 


30 


35 


30 


3c 


25 


15@30 


30-33)1 


35 


free 


30 


25 


35 


25 


d^ t 


3c 


35 


15(a),50 


40@45 


35 


free 


30 


35 


35 


35 


""^X. 


3c 


35 


mm 


.50 


25 


free 


35 


35 


25 


35 


03 CI 


3c 


34 


mis 


44 


34 


free 


34 


24 


34 


34 


.=Sft 


3c 


33 


0@73 


38 


33 


free 


33 


33 


33 


33 


^ i^^ 


3c 


30 


5(a)60 


40 


35 


free 


30 


30 


30 


25 


2b 


free 


35 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


20 


30 


free 


19 


0(a)34 


34 
12c. a 


15 


34 


24 


34 


34 


15 


34 


free 


30 


m2o 


lb. & 

35 ^ct 


X 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 








50c. & 














3c 


35 


HO 


35 ^ct 
35c. & 


d 


30 


35 


35 


45 


40 


40 


free 


35 


*m 


35@40 


*71 


30 


35 


45 


45 


40 


45 



H 



10 
10 
10 
15 
15 



30@35 

35@40 
35@60 



The figures marked with a * are the average rates collected on the next 
year's imports. All the others are at the rates embodied in the law. 



18 THE HISTORY OF TARIFF CHANGES. 

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS NOT TO BE "PERPETUAL." 

In 1833 Mr. Clay said: 

Now, give us time; cease all fluctuation and agitations for nine 
years, and the manufacturers in every branch will sustain themselves 
against foreign competition. 

In 1840 he said: 

No one, Mr. President, in the commencement of the protective policy 
ever supposed that it was to be perpetual. 

We hoped and believed that temporary protection extended to our 
infant manufacturers Avould bring them up and enable them to with- 
stand competition with those of Europe. If the protective policy were 
entirely to cease in 1842 it would have existed twenty-six years from 
1816, or eighteen from 1824, quite as long as at either of these periods 
its friends supposed might be necessary. 

In 1842 he said: 

Let me not be misunderstood, and let me entreat that I may not be 
misrepresented. I am not advocating the revival of a high protective 
tariff. I am abiding by the principles of the compromise act. 

But in 1810 he had said: 

But it is important to diminish our imports, to furnish ourselves 
with clothing made by our own industry, and to cease to be dependent 
for the very coats we wear upon foreign and perhaps inimical country. 
The nation that imports its clothing from abroad is but little less de- 
pendent than if it imported its bread. 

The vote for the Act of 1846 was: House, 114 to 43; Senate, 27 
to 27, Vice-President Dallas casting the deciding vote (28 to 27). 
Mr. Dallas in explaining his vote, in part said: 

"During that period ('high duties on imports * * for more than 
thirty years') a system of high taxation has prevailed, with fluctua- 
tions of success and failure. It ought to be remembered that this exer- 
cise of the taxing power was originally intended to be temporary. 

"The design was to foster feeble 'infant' {his italics) manufacturers, 

ESPECIALLY SUCH AS WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE DEFENSE OF THE COUN- 
TRY IN TIME OF WAR. 

"In this design, the people have persevered until these saplings have 
taken root; have become vigorous, expanded and powerful, and are 
prepared to enter, with confidence, the field of fair, free and universal 
competition. 

"The arrival of this period of time has been anxiously looked for by 
a large portion of our fellow citizens, who deem themselves peculiar 
and almost exclusive sufferers by the policy of protection. 

"They have sometimes, perhaps, imprudently, endeavored to an- 
ticipate it. 

"Their numbers, at first entitled in influence, only from their patriot- 
ism and intelligence, have gone on, gradually increasing as the system 
ripened to its fruit, and they now constitute a decided majority of 
the people of the Union." 



THE TARIFF AND TRUSTS. 19 



THE TARIFF AND TRUSTS. 

The protective tariff has been acknowl«»dged by one of its 
principal beneficiaries, Mr. Havemeyer, president of the Sugar 
Trust, in his testimony before the Industrial Commission, June 
14, 1899, to be the "mother of all trusts" and as that statement is 
pretty near the truth it seems desirable to treat the tariff and 
trust questions under one head. 

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS ON TARIFF AND TRUSTS. 

The Democratic position on the tariff issue, as declared in the 
last national platform was: 

"The Democratic party has been and will continue to be the con- 
sistent opponent of that class of tariff legislation by which certain 
interests have been permitted through Congressional favor to draw 
heavy tribute from the American people. This monstrous perversion 
of those equal opportunities which our political institutions were es- 
tablished to secure, has caused what may once have been infant indus- 
tries to become the greatest combinations of capital that the world 
has ever known. These especial favorites of the government have, 
through trust methods, been converted into monopolies, thus bringing 
to an end domestic competition, which was the only alleged check 
upon the extravagant profits made possible by the protective system. 
These industrial combinations by the financial assistance they can 
give, now control the policy of the Republican party. We denounce 
protection as a robbery of the many to enrich the few ; and we favor a 
tariff limited to the needs of the government, economically adminis- 
tered, and so levied as not to discriminate against any industry, class 
or section, to the end that the burdens of taxation shall be distributed 
as equally as possible. 

"We favor a revision and a gradual reduction of the tariff by the 
friends of the masses and for the common weal, and not by the friends 
of its abuses, its extortions and its discriminations; keeping in view 
the ultimate ends of 'equality of burdens and equality of opportunities' 
and the constitutional purposes of raising a revenue by taxation — to 
wit, the support of the Federal Government in all its integrity and 
virility, but in simplicity." 

The national platform of 1900 declared that: 

"Tariff laws should be amended by putting the products of trusts 
upon the free list to prevent monopoly under the plea of protection." 
* * ft "YUe condemn the Dingley tariff law as a trust-breeding 
measure, skilfully devised to give to the few favors which they do not 
deserve, and to place upon the many burdens which they should 
not bear." 

There is no doubt therefore where the Democratic party stands 
on the tariff and the trusts. The Republican position is to "stand 
pat" and "continue to stand pat," or as Speaker Cannon puts it, 
"stand pat and pass the hat." 

REPUBLICAN PLATFORM ON TARIFF AND TRUSTS. 

The last Republican national platform declared: 

"We insist upon the maintenance of the principles of protection, 
and therefore rates of duty should be readjusted only when conditions 
have so changed that the public interest demands their alteration; 
but this work cannot be safely committed to any other hands than 
those of the Republican party. To intrust it to the Democratic party 
is to invite disaster," 



20 TARIFF HISTORY. 



On the trusts the Republican platform declared: 

"Combinations of capital and of labor are the results of the eco- 
nomic movement of the age, but neither must be permitted to in- 
fringe upon the rights and interests of the people. Such combi- 
nations, when lawfully formed for lawful purposes, are alike en- 
titled to the protection of the laws, but both are subject to the laws, 
and neither can be permitted to break them." 

Therefore: 

1. The issue on the tariff question is not between theoretical pro- 
tection and theoretical free trade; it is between exaggerated pro- 
tection producing monopoly, and a fair and just revision of the 
schedules in behalf of the general welfare; the former is the Re- 
publican position, the latter the Democratic. 



TARIFF HISTORY. 

DISPROVES REPUBLICAN PLATFORM CONTENTION. 

The Republican national platform claims that: 

"A Democratic tariff has always been followed by business ad- 
versity, a Republican tariff by business prosperity." 

That hoary Republican misstatement has been reiterated in 
every campaign since the war, but it remained for Senator Lodge 
to embalm it in a Republican platform, and to have it approved 
by a President of the United States. 

HISTORICAL FACTS. 

Economic crises with the accompanying tariff in different 
countries were as follows: 

United States: England: France: 

1866 Free Trade 

1869 Protection 

1873 Protection. 1873 Free Trade. 1873 Protection. 

1882 Protection. 

1884 Protection 1884-5 Protection. 

1890 Protection. 1890 Free Trade. 1890 Protection. 

1893 Protection 1893 Protection, 

These dates are taken from "Economical Crises," page 137, by 
Edward D. Jones, professor of economics, University of Wisconsin. 

The table shows that all the panics in this country have 
occurred under Republican auspices and with the highest protec- 
tive tariff, and in France the same conditions prevailed, while in 
free trade England there has been only one panic since 1873, and 
that known as the "Baring panic," was purely financial. 

That the present "boom" will be followed by a panic is only a 
question of time. The present is a period of great inflation 
through the natural vast increase in the output of gold, and the 
further artificial increase through legislation. The national bank 
currency has been inflated 10 per cent, by the act allowing the 
banks to issue notes up to the par value of the bonds deposited, 
and the large increase in the number of banks under the act 
allowing national banks to be organized with $25,000 capital. So 



TARIFF HISTORY. 21 



that, whereas in 1896 the per capita circulation was $21.42 in 
1905, it had increased to $31.08, or nearly 50 per cent, more than 
in 1896, and now exceeds $32; thereby proving the Democratic 
contention of the quantitative theory of money, and substantiating 
the demand made by the Democrats in 1896, that the currency of 
the country should be increased. It is not the tariff therefore, 
which has produced the present "boom," but inflation of the 
currency and record crops in this country with a shortage of 
crops in other countries, and the consequent good demand for 
our products from England and elsewhere. 

IS PROTECTION PANIC PROOF? 

The argument used by Senator Gallinger, which was so care- 
fully prepared by the paid officials of the Protective Tariff League, 
and published as a document in 1904, under the thrilling caption, 
"Protection Is Panic Proof," is completely demolished by the 
facts above presented. Protection was certainly not panic proof 
in 1873. Where was the God of Protection then? Perchance, 
like Baal of old, he was on a journey, or, peradventure, he Was 
sleeping. Heaven knows that theJProtectionists called upon Him 
loudly enough, just then; for their plight was pitiable. 

Perhaps Senator Gallinger, or other protectionist orators, may 
show to their own satisfaction that under the Democratic low 
tariff of 1846-1857 the country was in a continual panic; but the 
facts would belie them, for that period was one of remarkable 
prosperity. Then, as now, the gold output was enormously 
increased by the discoveries in California in 1847, and circulation 
of money per capita increased, from $6.79 in 1840 to $15.81 in 1857. 
Immigration was on a large scale, as it is now. Crops were good 
here and poor abroad, as now. In fact, the country was so 
flourishing that the Secretary of the Treasury used to harp in 
his annual reports on "a new commercial era," as Secretary Shaw 
is now doing. Yet tariff rates at that time averaged less than 25 
per cent. But prosperity was so great and the tariff produced 
so much revenue, that the public debt was virtually extinguished, 
being reduced in 1857 to but 99 cents per capita, whereas on June 
30, 1905, it was $11.91, and exceeds that flgure today. Hence the 
tariff of 1857 was purposely passed to reduce and did reduce the 
30 per cent, ad valorem act of 1846 to 20 per cent, ad valorem, 
and Nathaniel P. Banks, a Republican, was speaker with an anti- 
Democratic majority behind him. Of this law Mr. Blaine in his 
"Twenty Years in Congress," says: 

TARIFF 1846— MR. BLAINE. 

Moreover, the tariff of 1846 was yielding an abundant revenue, and 
the business of the country was in a flourishing condition at the time 
his administration [President Pierce's] was organized. Money be- 
came very abundant after the year 1849; large enterprises were 
undertaken, speculation was prevalent, and for a considerable period 
the prosperity of the country was general and apparently genuine. 

TARIFF 1857— RESISTANCE CEASED TO LOW TARIFF. 

The principles embodied in the tariff of 1856 seemed for the time to 
be so entirely vindicated and approved that resistance to it ceased, not 
only among the people, but among the protective economists, and even 
among the manufacturers, to a large extent, 



22 TARIFF HISTORY. 



So general was this acquiescence that in 1856 a protective tariff was 
not suggested, or even hinted, by any one of the three parties which 
presented Presidential candidates. 

"By this law (tariff 1857) the duties were placed lower than they 
had been at any time since the war of 1812. 

"The act was well received by the people, and was, indeed, con- 
curred in by a considerable portion of the Republican party." 

The convention (which nominated Mr. Lincoln, 1860) therefore 
avoided the use of the word "protection," and was contented with 
the moderate declaration that "sound public policy" requires such 
an adjustment of imports as will encourage the development of the 
industrial interest of the whole country. 

The conditions of that period of prosperity and low tariff are so 
well stated by the New York Evening Post, May 20, 1904, that it 
is worthy of repetition: 

"With rare foresight, Mr. Blaine, in his 'Twenty Years of Con- 
gress,' anticipated the Senator from New Hampsnire. The pro- 
tectionists, he says, held that the boasted prosperity under the tariff 
of 1846 was abnormal in origin and character. 'It depended on a 
series of events exceptional at home and even more exceptional 
abroad — events which by the doctrine of probabilities would not be 
repeated for centuries. The protectionists maintain that from 1840 
to 1857 the United States would^iave enjoyed prosperity under any 
form of tariff, but that the amount of exceptional conditions in 
Europe and America came to an end the country was plunged head- 
long into a disaster from which the conservative force of a pro- 
tective tariff would in large part have saved it.' But that sort 
of talk will not go down with such men as John Sharp Williams. 
They will insist on knowing why the exceptional conditions prior to 
1857 cannot be ascribed to the low tariff of 1846. We all know that 
the poor crops in Europe and the big crops in this country in 1897 
were due to protection, and why were not the Irish potato famine 
and the high price of wheat in the forties equally due to the Walker 
tariff? 

"The Blaine explanation of 1846 is an edged tool for the friends 
of protection. In fact, it shows us very clearly Avhat caused the 
panic of 1873. The low tariff of 1846 was a death-dealing device, 
but it took eleven years to get in its work. Senator Gallinger de- 
clares that the Morrill tariff of 1861 was designedly a protective 
measure. The new policy was in operation during one of the greatest 
periods of speculation in our history. But in twelve years there was 
the worst collapse we had ever known. Certainly, protection was 
not panic proof then, and how do we know it is going to be panic 
proof now? Only seven years (now nine years) have passed since 
the Dingley law was enacted, whereas the experience of 1857 and 1873 
teaches that we must wait eleven or twelve years to discover whether 
a tariff is a tonic or a poison. Senator Gallinger did well to say 
nothing about 1873, but he should have steered clear of 1857 also." 

We will now quote from the very able report of Special Com- 
missioner of Revenue, David A. Wells, Executive Document No. 
16, House, Fortieth Congress, third session, dated January, 1869, 
first classifying our tariffs as follows: 

1816 to 1824, moderate protective. 

1824 to 1832, high protective. 

1833 to 1842, lower compromise. 

1842 to 1848, higher protective. 

1846 to 1857, low revenue. 

1857 to 1861, lower revenue. 

Mr. Wells said: 

"Production of pig iron in 1830, 165,000 tons; in 1840, 347,000 
tons. Increase in 10 years, 110 per cent. 



TARIFF msTOliV. 23 

"Production in 1845, 486,000 tons; increase in 5 years, 40 per cent. 

"Production in 1850, 564,000 tons; increase in 10 years, 62 per cent. 

"Production in 1855, 754,000 tons; increase in 5 years, 33 per cent. 

"Production in 1860, 913,000 tons; increase in 10 years, 61 per cent. 

"It thus appears that the great annual increase in the production 
of pig iron took place prior to the year 1840, and for 30 years was 
remarkably uniform at the rate of 10 to 11 per cent, per annum; and 
that since then, no matter what has been the character of the legis- 
lation, whether the tariff was low or high, whether the condition 
of the country was one of war or peace, the increase of the production 
has been at the average of about 8 per cent, per annum, or more than 
double the ratio of the increase of population. 

"Again, as another curious illustration of an apparent misconcep- 
tion of the effects of past legislation upon the development of the 
country, take the following paragraph from the recent report of a 
congressional committee : 

" 'No business men of mature age need be reminded of the revulsion 
which followed in consequence of the free-trade system of 1846 — the 
decline of production, of immigration, of wages, of public or private 
revenue, until the culmination of the system in the tariff of 1857, 
with the memorable crisis of that period; the general ruin of manu- 
facturers and merchants; the suspended payment of the banks; the 
reduction of the Treasury to the verge of bankruptcy, and the un- 
paralleled distress among the unemployed poor.' 

"Now, with all due deference to the Committee, the Commissioner 
would ask attention to the following statistics bearing on the ques- 
tion under consideration : 

"Increase in the production of pig iron: In 1840, 347,000 tons; in 
1845, 486,000; in 1850, 564,755; 1855, 754,178; 1860, 913,770. 

"Increase in the production of Pennsylvania anthracite coal: 1842, 
1,108,418 tons; 1846,2,344,005; 1847,2,882,309; 1849,3,217,641; 1855, 
6,486,097; 1860, 8,143,938. 

"Increase in the domestic consumption of cotton north of the Po- 
tomac: 1840, 297,000 bales; 1845,422,000; 1849-50,476,000; 1851-52, 
588,000; 1855, 633,000; 1858-59, 760,000; 1859-00, 792,000. 

"Increase in immigration: 1840, 84,000; 1845, 174,000; 1850, 
310,000; 1854,427,000. 

"Increasce in public revenues: 1840, $19,000,000; 1845, $29,- 
000,000; 1850, $52,000,000; 1855, $74,000,000. 

"Increase of national wealth: From 1840 to 1850, 80 per cent.; 
from 1850 to 1860, 126 per cent. In 1854 the 6 per cent, bonds of the 
United States, issued in 1848, commanded a premium of 21 per cent. 

"Commercial tonnage of the United States: 1840, 2,180,000; 1850, 
3,535,000; 1860,5,353,000. 

"Exports and imports: In 1840, $239,000,000; 1845, $231,000,000; 
1850, $330,000,000; 1855, $536,000,000; 1860, $762,000,000. 

"Increase in shipbuilding: 1842, 129,084 tons; 1845, 146,018; 
1850, 272,219; 1855, 583,450. 

"Annual increase of railroad construction: 1842, 491 miles; 1845, 
256; 1847, 669; 1849, 1,369; 1853, 2,452; 1856, 3,643 m.iles." 

ANOTHER REPUBLICAN STATESMAN. 

' Mr. Garfield in the House, April 1, 1870 (App. Globe, pp. 271-2), 
in urging tariff reform, in part, said: 



FIRST FURNACE TO REDUCE ORE ERECTED IN 1846. 

"I believe that the first furnace in the United States which re- 
duced ore with raw bituminous coal was established in Mahoning 
County, Ohio, in 1846. From that time, year by year, with some 
interruption, there has been an increase in the number of furnaces. 
In the year 1856, the Lake Superior ore was brought down to the 
Ohio coal region, and now there come down the Northern Lakes, as 



24 TARIFF HISTORY. 



has been shown by the gentleman from Michigan, about 500,000 tons 
per annum of Lake Superior ore; and more than one-fourth of the 
whole amount is every year consumed in two counties of my Con- 
gressional district." 

In the same speech, p. 272, he states that: 

"The tariff act of 1842 was adopted, by which the rate of duty was 
raised and fixed at an average of 33 per cent. 

"In 1845, the Free Trade Party having again come into power, a 
heavy reduction of the tariff was made in 1846, and the rate pushed 
down to an average of 24 1^ per cent." 

He further states: 

"That the Tariff Act of 1847," enacted by all political parties, 
"reduced the rate of duty to 24% per cent., a lower rate than it had 
reached in 40 years. * * * 

"In the year 1861 marked a new era in the history of the tariff. In 
the winter of 1860-61 the rates were again raised. From the second 
of March, 1861, to the present time (1870) there had been thirteen 
separate tariff acts and revolutions, all of which have more or less 
increased the rate of duty, and it now averages about 47% per cent. 
on dutiable articles and 41 per cent, on all our- imports, both dutiable 
and free." 

REASON FOR ABANDONING THE VERY LOW TARIFF 
OF 1857 AND RAISING THE RATES. 

''That these acts loere made necessary hy the loar few will venture 
to deny. It is also undeniable that the heavy internal taxes imposed 
upon the manufacturing industries neutralized the effect of protec- 
tive duties and made an increase of the tariff necessary as a measure 
of compensating protection. 

"But as I have already shown, the heaviest burdens of internal taxes 
have been removed from manufacturers and a demand that some cor- 
responding reduction in the tarifi' rate shall be made is coming up 
from all quarters of the country. The signs are unmistakable that 
a strong reaction is setting in against the prevailing rates, and he 
is not a wise legislator who shuts his eyes to the fact of the situation." 

GARFIELD FOR ULTIMATE FREE TRADE. 

In concluding his speech, he quoted from a former address in 
this House in 1866, in which he said: 

"I am for a protection which leads to ultimate free trade. I am 
for that free trade which can only be achieved through a reasonable 
protection." 

Mr. Henry Loomis Nelson was Secretary to the Hon. John G. 
Carlisle while Speaker of the House. On July 4, 1884, Mr. Carlisle 
addressed him a letter, in part saying this: 

"Learning that you have prepared and propose to publish a volume 
containing a condensed statement of the arguments in opposition to 
the protective system in favor of a revenue tariff, I desire to say," etc., 

commending Mr. Nelson for his undertaking. By far, his is the 
most complete presentation of the operations of the low tariff of 
1846 and 1857, which is herewith, in part, presented: 

WHAT A LOW TARIFF DID FOR THE COUNTRY. 

Between 1846 and 1860 the country had a low tariff. Under the 
law of 1846 the average duty was about 25 per cent., and under the 
act of 1857 it was about '20 per cent. There was never a period of 
greater prosperity in the history of the country. 



TARIFF HISTORY. 25 

In 1850 the cash value of the farms was $3,271,575,426, and in 1860 
it was $6,645,045,057, an increase of 103 per cent. In 1870 the value 
of farms was $9,202,853,861 in currency, an increase of only 39 per 
cent, over the gold valuations of 1860. In 1880 the value of farms 
was $10,197,090,766, an increase of a little more than 10 per cent, 
over the valuations of 1870. From 1850 to 1860 the value of farming 
implements increased 63.50 per cent. In the next decade the increase 
was only 36 per cent, in currency, while from 1870 to 1880 the increase 
was only 20.66 per cent. 

SOME NOTABLE COMPARISONS. 

From 1830 to 1840 the aggregate of real and personal property 
increased 40 per cent.; from 1840 to 1850 37 per cent. In 1850 this 
aggregate value was $7,135,780,228; in 1860 it was $16,159,616,068, 
an increase of 126 per cent. In 1870 the aggregate value was $30,068,- 
518,507 in currency, being an apparent increase of a little more than 
85 per cent. In 1860 the total State and local taxation was $94,186,- 
746, but in 1870 it had reached the enormous sum of $280,591,521, an 
increase of 198 per cent., although the value of property had increased 
only 85 per cent. An examination of the report of the Superintendent 
of the Census for 1870 shows that the increase in the value of real and 
personal property from 1850 to 1860 was more than 184 per cent., 
instead of 126 per cent., and that instead of an increase of 85 per cent, 
from 1860 to 1870 there was an actual decrease of more than 3 per 
cent. This arises from what the Superintendent says was an under- 
valuation of property in 1860 by carelessness of from 20 to 80 per 
cent., while the nominal valuation of property was increased in 1870 
from '30 to 40 per cent, through the effects of currency inflation and 
other causes. Making the necessary allowances for these sums^ we 
have $20,199,520,085 as the proper valuation for 1860 and $19,544,- 
537,030 as the true valuation for 1870. If our wealth had increased 
from 1860 to 1880 at the same rate that it did from 1850 to 1860, it 
would have reached, in 1880, $83,000,000,000, instead of $43,500,- 
000,000. 

LOW TARIFF INCREASES MANUFACTURING. 

There was some wonderful increases in our manufacturing and me- 
chanical industries. In 1850 the total value of the products of me- 
chanical and manufacturing industries was $1,019,106,616; in 1860 
it was $1,885,861,676, an increase of 87 per cent., although the popu- 
lation of the country had increased only 35.50 per cent. From 1860 
to 1870 the actual increase was only 52 per cent. 

PRODUCTION OF COAL INCREASED. 

The increase in the production of coal, which, according to the pro- 
tection leaders, indicates better than any other single branch of in- 
dustry the progress of all manufacturing enterprises, was very won- 
derful between 1850 to 1860. The following table shows the increase: 

Per Cent. 

Gain in number of mines 22.30 

Gain in value of yearly products 182.00 

Gain in value of material used 1,017.00 

Gain in amount paid as wages 137.00 

Gain in number of hands employed 143.33 

Gain in amount of capital invested 253.00 

COAL OUTPUT IN PENNSYLVANIA INCREASED. 

In Pennsylvania the capital invested in the production of coal was 
331 per cent, greater in 1860 than in 1850, and the value of the coal 
product increased 179.90 per cent. In Maryland the increase was 
nearly 137 per cent., in Ohio nearly 127 per cent., in Indiana nearly 
652 per cent., in Illinois it was 1,708 per cent., in Iowa it was 2,204 
per cent., in Kentucky it was 200 per cent., and in Alabama nearly 
237 per cent. 



26 TARIFF HISTORY. 

HIGH TARIFF KILLED SHIPBUILDING. 

During the fiscal year our foreign trade amounted to $687,372,176, 
which was $45,000,000 greater than ever before. We built 2,265 ships 
and barks between 1850 and 1860, and only 800 during the next 
decade, and only 608 between 1870 and 1880. Then our tonnage en- 
gaged in all trades, coasting as well as foreign, was 5,353,868 tons; 
now, after the expiration of twenty years, it is 4,068,035 tons. 

REVENUE TARIFF PROMOTES INTELLECTUAL 
CONDITIONS. 

The social and intellectual condition of the people kept pace with 
the material progress. Schools^ churches and libraries flourished. 
The products of the printing establishments of the United States in- 
creased during the same time 143 per cent. Wonderful as this is, it 
does not tell the story of the prosperity and growth of the preceding 
decade under a revenue tariff. Then the products of the printing 
houses increased 168 per cent., while the capital invested increased 
235 per cent. In New England the increased product was more than 
96 per cent., and in the Middle States 139 per cent. Pennsylvania in- 
creased her product 250 per cent., New Jersey 322 per cent. In the 
eleven Western States and Territories the increase was 572 per cent. 
The State of New York increased 104.60 per cent., and actually turned 
out more than the whole country produced in 1850. 

POSTOFFICES INCREASED. 

In 1850 we had 18,417 postoffices and 178,672 miles of post routes, 
but in 1860 we had 28,498 postoffices and 245,594 miles of post routes, 
an increase of 55 per cent., in the number of offices and 35 per cent. 
in the miles of routes. In 1880, twenty years later, we had 42,989 
postoffices and 343,888 miles of post roads, being an increase since 
1860 of only 50 per cent, in one and 42.50 in the other. 

MANUFACTURE OF PAPER INCREASED. 

In the manufacture of paper the United States increased the value 
of its product 106.50 per cent, from 1860 to 1870, while the capital 
invested increased 126.50 per cent., but from 1850 to 1860 the value of 
the product increased more than 108 per cent, and the capital invested 
nearly 180 per cent. The increase in the number of hands employed 
was 73.50 per cent., and in the total amount of wages paid 89 per 
cent. Pennsylvania alone increased her product 128 per cent. 

HOW RAILROAD BUILDING FLOURISHED. 

Up to the year 1850 we had constructed only 9,021 miles of railroad 
in this country, but at the close of 1860 we had 30,635 miles, being an 
increase of 239.5 per cent, in ten years. At the close of the year 1870 
we had 52,914 miles, being an increase of a little more than 72 per 
cent, over 1860, notwithstanding the Government had since 1860 
granted millions of acres of public lands and issued its own bonds to 
the amount of millions of dollars to various railroad companies to aid 
in the construction of their lines. In 1880 we had 88,237 miles, an 
increase of 66.66 per cent, during the decade. 

LABOR AND WAGES INCREASED. 

The value of the output of our woolen mills from 1850 to 1860 
increased nearly 42.5 per cent., while from 1870 to 1880 it increased 
only 22.57 per cent. The number of hands employed increased 18.5 
per cent, and the total wages increased 36.8 per cent. In New England 
the product of the woolen mills increased 62 per cent.; the increase in 
Rhode Island being 176 per cent.; Massachusetts, 53.7 per cent.; New 
Jersey, 21.57 per cent; Vermont, 61.39; Maine, 83.46. 



TARIFF HISTORY. 27 



CARPET MANUFACTURING INCREASED. 

The value of the carpet manufacturers increased 45.40 per cent. 
The increase in the number of hands employed was 8 per cent, and in 
wages paid nearly 24 per cent. The compensation of each hand was 
15 per cent, more in 1860 than in 1850. In the Middle States the 
value of the product increased 80.90 per cent. ; in Maine, 47.30 ; Mas- 
sachusetts, 44.80; New York, 32.90; Pennsylvania, 138; Ohio, 208. 

The product of the manufacturers of hosiery increased 608 per cent. 
The Eastern States increased 481 per cent.; Middle States, 695.50; 
Western States, 445. Pennsylvania increased 276 per cent.; Con- 
necticut, 523; New Jersey, 379; Massachusetts, 373; Maryland, 255; 
Ohio, 278; Missouri, 726. 

REVENUE TARIFF PROMOTES IRON PRODUCTION. 

Tlie production of iron ore increased 79.20 per cent, while the 
capital invested increased 126.30 per cent. The total number of hands 
employed in this industry was 45 per cent, greater in 1860 than in 
1850, and the total amount of wages paid was nearly 57 per cent, 
greater. 

PENNSYLVANIA SHARED \NELL. 

The production of pig iron increased 54 per cent, in the United 
States; in Pennsylvania, 82 per cent.; New Jersey, 105; Kentucky, 
27 ; New York, 53. At the same time the price of pig iron was re- 
duced from $23.43 in 1850 to $21.13 in 1860. 

The increase in the value of bar, sheet and railroad iron was more 
than 100 per cent. The number of hands employed increased 66 per 
cent., and the amount of wages paid 80 per cent. Pennsylvania in- 
creased her production 106 per cent.; Delaware, 230; Maryland, 104; 
Ohio, 173; Kentucky, 68; Virginia, 104. 

Iron castings increased in the value of the product 74.80 per cent.; 
in the Middle States, more than 100 per cent.; in Pennsylvania, 100 
per cent.; in Maine, more than 520 per cent. 

In the production of hardAvare there was an increase of 56.70 per 
cent,, while the capital increased 90 per cent., and the number of 
hands employed 53.50 per cent. The New England States increased 
100 per cent, and made more hardware in 1860 than all the States 
made in 1850. Connecticut alone increased her production 103.80 
per cent.; New Jersey, 360; Ohio, 99; the Western States, 74 percent. 

STEEL INDUSTRY BORN UNDER THE REVENUE TARIFF. 

The steel industry had its birth during the decade from 1850 to 
1860. The product increased 99.5 per cent.; capital invested, over 
3,000; hands employed, 1770; wages paid, 123.6. 

In the manufacture of machinery, steam engines, etc., including loco- 
motives, hay and cotton presses and cotton and woolen machinery, the 
value of the product increased 66.6 per cent, in the whole country, but 
in the Western States the increase was 217 per cent. 

The manufacture of sewing machines was scarcely known in 1850, 
but in 1860 the value of the product was $4,247,820. 



28 



TARIFF HISTORY. 



VOTES ON TARIFFS, 1789 TO 1883. 

-Table showing the votes, by States, given in the House of Repre- 
sentatives on the passage of each of the general 
tariff acts since that of 1789 to 1883. 



States. 


1790. 


1791. 


May 

1793. 


Mar. 
3, 

1797. 


May 

26, 
1804. 


July 
1812. 


T 

1816. 


May 

22, 
1824. 


May 

29, 
1828. 




i 




i 


a 


i 


z; 


i 


S 
^ 


03 




i 


& 
Z 


1 


^ 
^ 


03 


i 
^ 


03 
0) 


^ 
^ 


New England States: 
Maine 












- 




1 






1 


1 






1; 

5 
1 
5 
2 

26 

1 
3 


1 ^ 
5 

'ii 

1 

8 

"i 

6 


"4 
5 

2 
4 
1 

27 

2f 
1 
1 


1 •( 


New Hampshire 


2 


1 


3 




2 
1 

6 

4 
1 

4 
3 
5 
1 
3 


1 

1 

... 

2 

... 

... 

3 


4 
2 
10 

6 
1 

7 
4 
5 

5 


... 

'i 
1 

1 

1 
2 


3 
3 
12 
3 
2 

8 
5 
15 




' 3 
3 
2 

5 
5 
16 

"5 


1 

13 
6 

2 

9 

"2 

1 
3 


1 
5 
7 
2 
2 

20 

5 

17 

' 2 


3 

1 
4 

2 

2 

"3 

5 


' 


Vermont 








6 

2 


8 
5 
1 

4 
•4 
3 

1 

1 


2 
"3 
.3 


11 




3 


9 


Rhode Island.... 


1 


Middle States: 
New York 


4 
2 
7 
1 
3 


1 
"2 


R 


New Jersey 




Pennsylvania 










5 


West Virginia 




Western and NoTth- 
westem States : 
Ohio 


















1 




1 




4 




14 

1 


::: 


13 
3 

1 
























Illinois '....... 
































Michigan 


















































































































































Missouri 






























1 






1 


































Nebraska 






































Colorado 






































Southern and South- 
western States : 


5 
2 
3 


... 

... 
1 


4 
"l 


4 
4 
2 
3 


3 
1 
3 


5 
4 
9. 


9 
5 
3 

2 


5 
2 

1 


17 
9 
5 
2 


•• 


14 
6 
6 
3 


7 

I 


7 


13 
11 
3 
3 


1 


21 

13 
9 
7 
3 
1 


3 


1^ 


North Carolina 


n 


South Carolina 


8 


Georgia 


... 2 


7 


Alabama ^ . . . 


8 












...|... 




















1 


Florida 













































' 














1 




3j... 


3 


































































Kentucky . 












2 
1 




5 
2 




4 
3 




6 
3 


1 

2 


11 

2 


"7 


12 


















9 


Pacific States: 
Califorina 
















Oregon 






























L-.l-.. 






Nevada 






























^.. ...i... 








... 


























Total 


39| 13| 35| 21| 37| 20| S6| 21| 98|..| 76| 48| 88| 54 | 107 | 102 | 105 | 94 



TARIFF HISTORY. 



29 



A. — Table showing the votes, hy States, given in the House of Repre- 
sentatives on the passage of each of the general 
tariff acts since that of 1789. — Continued. 



States. 


July 

14. 

1832. 


Feb. 
26, 
1833. 


1842. 


1846. 


1857. 


Mar. 

2, 
1861. 


Aug. 
1861. 


Dec. 
24, 
1861. 


July 
14. 

1862. 




i 


1 


1 


03 


i 


1^ 

1 


i 




i 


03 


i 




i 


i 

^ 


i 


eS 






New England States: 
Maine 


6 
5 


1 

's 

8 
3 
2 

2 
3 
12 
1 


6 

4 

11 
"4 
"9 


1 
1 
5 
13 
6 
2 

19 
6 

21 
1 


4 

4 
10 
6 
2 

23 
6 

20 
1 
4 


2 
4 

**i 

8 


5 
3 

"i 

15 

"2 


1 
1 
2 
9 
4 
2 

14 
6 
23 


6 
2 

9 

1 

15 
2 
3 


'i 
3 

4 
1 

10 
1 

15 
1 
1 


3 
2 
3 
9 
4 
2 

18 
4 
22 

;:: 


6 

"i 

2 


5 

"3 

8 
1 
1 

25 
3 

14 


"1 

"l 
2 
1 

2 
1 
6 
1 
3 


6 

1 
3 
9 

1 

20 
1 
9 


... 

1 
1 

. "i 


6 

2 
2 
7 

1 
1 

13 

'is 








Vermont , 




Massachusetts 


4 
'2 






1 






Middle States: 
New York 


27 
3 
14 


i 


New Jersey 


1 


Pennsylvania 


5 








8 


2 


1 


1 


4 


3 


1 




3 


West Virginia 




Western and North- 
western States: 
Ohio 


13 
3 

1 




7 
2 

1 


6 

1 


8 
3 

1 
1 


6 
3 

2 


11 
5 
5 
3 


8 
2 


5 

3 
3 
1 

1 


15 
8 
4 
3 


13 

5 
3 
3 

1 
2 

"i 


"3 

3 

... 

1 

"*5 


10 
2 
2 
4 

1 

*"i 

1 


10 
5 
3 

"2 
"2 


8 

I 
2 

'i 
"i 


6 
5 

4 

"i 
1 

"i 


7 
5 
3 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 


<, 


Indiana ... 


7 


Illinois 


3 


Michigan ^ 




































Iowa 


















1 


'3 






1 






1 


... 


2 


' 




1 






Nebraska 




































Colorado 






































Southern and South- 
western States: 
Virginia 


11 
8 
3 

1 

2 

1 


8 
4 
6 
6 

1 


20 
13 
9 
6 
3 
1 


1 


3 

"i 


17 
10 
5 
7 
4 
3 


13 

5 
7 
4 


1 
3 

"2 

1 


13 
6 
4 
4 
7 
4 
1 
4 
2 
1 
7 
7 

2 




... 
1 


8 
6 


1 


1 


3 






1 


North Carolina 




South Carolina 


































Alabama 
















— 




Mississippi 








* 












Florida 
























1 


2 


3 


... 


2 


1 


3 

"4 

5 


1 

"g 

6 




















Texas 




















Arkansas 












1 
8 
13 




* ■ 
















Kentucky . . 


9 
9 


3 


12 
8 


"i 


4 


2 


4 
2 


1 
6 

1 


•■• 


7 


1 


6 


2 


5 


Tennessee 


•> 


Pacific States: 




Oregon 


























1 


1 


Nevada 
































































... 1 — 


Total 


132 


65 


119 


85 


103 


99 


114 


93 


1118 


72 


102 


t 43 


1 82 


148 


176 


29 


I 69 


1 36 



30 



TARIFF HISTORY. 



A. — ^Table showing the votes, by States, given in the House of Repre- 
sentatives on the passage of each of the general 
tariff acts since that of 1789 — Continued. 



States. 


June 
30, 
1864. 


Mar. 
3, 

1865. 


July 

28, 
1866. 


July 
14, 

1870. 


June 

1872. 


Feb. 
1875. 


Mar. 
3, 

1875. 


Mar. 

1883. 




i 


03 


i 


OS 


i 


03 


i 


OS 


i 


OS 


1 - 


i i 

^1^ 


c3 


!2; 


New England States: 


3 

2 
3 

8 

1 
1 

14 

1 

15 
1 

1 


"i 

2 

1 


3 

2 
3 
7 
2 
2 

10 

"19 
1 
2 
2 

3 

2 
4 
3 
3 
1 
5 
6 
1 


i 
"i 

12 
4 

1 


3 
3 
3 

10 
2 
2 

16 

1 
19 




4 
2 
3 

8 
3 


4 


"2 

1 
1 
2 

5 
2 

20 

"i 

ii' 

"4 
2 
1 


2 
2 
2 
7 
3 
1 

15 
5 
18 

1 
2 

13 

10 

7 

7 
5 
1 
5 

2 

1 


8 
1 
5 


3 
2 

1 
8 
2 
1 

13 

21 


1 

1 
1 
2 

6 

2 
5 


4 
3 
3 
9 
3 
2 

21 
7 
20 


1 






3 

"7 
3 




Vermont 




Massachusetts 








Rhode Island 




Middle States: 
New York 


5 
3 

2 


16 
19 


10 
2 
4 


18 
2 
3 
1 
3 
3 

5 
11 
13 
2 
4 
1 
6 
9 
1 
1 


A 








5 


Delaware . 


1 




... 

9 

4 
5 
1 
2 

""i 


1 
3 

15 

... 

"i 

2 
1 

i 


4 

3 

7 
12 

"i 
3 
3 


"2 

13 
5 

11 
5 
5 
2 
5 
8 
1 
1 


3 

2 
3 
2 

"i 


3 
2 

8 
3 

7 

1 
. 2 

2 
13 

1 


1 
1 

10 
4 
2 
8 
6 
1 
5 
2 
2 
1 


3 
2 

10 
5 

12 
1 
1 
2 
3 

11 
1 


"i 

7 
8 
13 
8 
6 
3 
7 
4 
3 
1 
1 

3 

1 
2 
1 
1 

1 
1 

"i 

44 

2 

1 


fi 


West Virginia 


^ 


Western and Northwestern 
States: 
Ohio 


4 
2 
3 
4 
2 
1 
6 
5 
1 


9 
4 
3 

"2 


n 




5 


Illinois 


^ 


Michigan 


1 


Wisconsin 


1)1 


Minnesota 






1 


Missouri 


8 


Kansas ... .. 




Nebraska 




















Southern and Southwestern 
States: 
Virginia « 














5 

1 
1 


1 


6 
5 
2 
6 
5 
2 
1 
2 
4 

"g 

7 

1 


"i 
"3 


3 
1 
4 
2 
1 
3 




1 

"4 
1 
3 
3 


7 
4 

5 
3 

1 
1 

"e 

1 

10 
5 

2 


4 
















fi 
















3 


Georgia 














7 


Alabama 














1 
4 
1 
2 
3 
3 
5 
8 

2, 

"i 


4 

1 

i 

.. 

1 


4 


Mississippi 














4 


Florida 














1 
















"'3 
1 

1 


2 
"3 
"4 

4 


10 
6 


5 

'"i 

4 
2 


5 


Texas ... 














5 


Arkansas 














3 






4 




2 


1 


6 


8 






7 


Pacific States: 
California 


3 


... 


3 

1 


1 


1 
2 
1 




2 


Oregon 




Nevada 






* 










1 
















1 




1 





Total I 811 261 85| ■g|J5jJ9}152|35 |149| 61|136| 99 1 123 [ 114 1 152 1 116 

Note — ^On the passage by the House of Representatives of the act of 
May 1, 1872, placing coffee and tea on the free list, there were but 9 
negative votes, viz : Maryland, 2 ; Texas, 1 ; Arliansas, 1 ; Nevada, 1 ; 
Kentucky, 2 ; Missouri, 1 ; Pennsylvania, 1, 



TARWF HISTORY. 31 



AVERAGE DUTY FROM 1821 TO 1861. 

Date of Tariff Time of Dutiable Gross Average 

Operation Imports Revenue Duty 
Years. Per cent. 

Previous to 1821 4 $264,962,457 $90,436,612 341/3 

May 22, 1824 4 301,538,885 115,597,942 38 V2 

May 19, 1828 4 297,332,015 122,015,500 4iy2 

July 14, 1832 9 625,836,002 198,263,107 311/2 

Sept. 11, 1841 1 69,534,601 16,622,746 231/1 

Auff. 30, 1842 4 295,178,151 97,109,442 33 

Auff. 30, 1846 10 2,173,428,818 523,957,872 24% 

May 3. 1857 (to 1861) 3 741,213.216 144,542,956 2014 

Total 39 $4,709,024,145 $1,308,546,177 29 

(Ex. Doc. No. 2, Senate 39tli Con., 2d Sess. Submitted by David A. 
Wells, Spec. Com'r Revenue.) 

Average rate of duty collected per capita for the periods named 
was: 

Tariff 1846 to 1857 (both inclusive) 1.881/4 



1858 to 1860 


1.50 


1846 to 1860 


1.81 4-5 


1861 to 1864 


1.841/2 


1890 to 1893 


3.16% 


1804 to 1897 


2.18% 


1898 to 1905 


2.961/4 



By taking the average annual duty collected per capita (as 
published in a table contained in the speech of the Hon. James T. 
McCleary (Rep.), Record, August 22, 1906) and dividing the sum 
thereof by the number of years, we get the results just stated. 

The duty collected per capita, Dingley Tariff, 1905, was $3.11. 
(Representative McLeary's speech.) 

MORE REPUBLICANS COMMEND TARIFF, 1846. 

Senator Allison, urging tariff reform in 1870, commended the 
Walker tariff. He said : 

"It is claimed that the high rates of our present tariff are necessary 
because the revenue to be obtained therefrom is essential to the Gov- 
ernment, and that if we reduce the rates at all the effect will be the 
depression of all the industrial interests of the country. 

"The tariff of 1846, although confessedly and professedly a tariff for 
revenue, was, so far as regards all the great interests of the country, 
as perfect a tariff as any that we have ever had. If any interest was 
depressed under the tariff of 1846, it was the iron interest. 

INCREASE OF WEALTH. 

"I do not believe that this interest, as compared with other in- 
terests, had sufficient advantage under that tariff; yet when we com- 
pare the growth of the country from 1840 to 1850 with the growth 
of the country from 1850 to 1860, the latter decade being entirely 
under the tariff of 1846 or the amended and greatly reduced tariff 
of 1857, we find that the increase in our wealth between 1850 and 
1860 was equivalent to 126 per cent., while it was only 64 per cent, 
between 1840 and 1850, four years of which decade were under the 
tariff of 1842, known as a high protective tariff, but the average 
rate of which was about 70 per cent, below the existing rate, or 27 
per cent, under the tariff of 1842, as against 44 per cent, upon all 
importations under the present tariff. Our industries were generally 
prosperous in 1860, with the exception, possibly, of the iron industry. 

"This was the statement of Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, on this floor 
during the discussions of the tariff in 1864. 



32 TARIFP HISTORY. 



"With regard to the condition of the steel "industiy in 1860, the 
steel manufacturers in 1866, memorializing Congress for increase of 
duties on steel, stated that 'it was reserved to Pittsburg to bring 
about the first substantial and enduring success in the year 1860; 
and, encouraged by our example, numerous establishments have sprung 
into existence, as already indicated in this paper.' 

"This shows that under the revenue tariff of 1857, which imposed 
only an ad valorem duty of 12 per cent, on steel, a substantial suc- 
cess was achieved in the steel manufacture in 1860. I have read 
the language of the memorial." 

NEW ENGLANDERS CHANGE FROM HIGH TO LOW TARIFF. 

The New England members of both houses, as a rule, had voted 
for the high tariff of 1842, opposed the revenue tariff of 1846, but 
realizing its beneficial effects, and desiring to lessen the accumu- 
lation of the peoples' money in the Treasury, all three of the 
political parties voted for the much lower tariff, the Act of 1857, 
entitled: "An Act reducing the duty on imports and for other 
purposes," about which Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: 

SENATOR WILSON. 

"In closing, Mr. Chairman, the remarks I have felt it my duty to 
submit to the Senate and the country that the commonwealth I 
represent on this floor — I say in part for my colleague, Mr. Sumner, 
after an enforced absence of more than nine months, is here tonight 
to give his vote, if he can raise his voice, for the interest of his State — 
has a deep interest in the modification of the tariff of ^ 1846 by this 
Congress. Her merchants, manufacturers, mechanics and business 
men, in all departments of a varied industry, want action now 
before the Thirty-fourth Congress passes away. They are for the 
reduction of the revenue to the actual wants of an economical ad- 
ministration of the government; for the depletion of the Treasury, 
now full with millions of hoarded gold; for a free list, embracing 
ai^ticles of prime necessity we do not produce; for mere nominal 
duties on articles which make up a large portion of our domestic 
industry, and for such an adjustment of the duties on the pro- 
ductions of other nations that come in direct competition with the 
product of American capital, labor and skill and shall impose the 
least burdens on that capital, labor and skill." 

PANIC OF 1857 WAS FINANCIAL AND BRIEF. 

About the operations of the tariff of 1857, Mr. Edward Atkinson, 
'Of Massachusetts, before the Industrial Commission, 1901, said: 

"I then come down to the tariff of 1857, the lowest ever known in 
this country, with the largest free list. The period from 1857 to the 
beginning of the Civil War saw the most steady and constant de- 
velopment of the textile manufacturers of this country that I have 
ever known. I do not think there has been any such historical coin- 
cidence as you suggest." 

Q. "As a matter of history, was not the year 1857 the year of the 
great panic, from which we never recovered until the outbreak of the 
war?" 

Mr. Atkinson. "It was the year of the great bank panic, in which 
two of the commission houses to which my goods were consigned 
suspended payment. That lasted but a few months and was purely a 
financial panic. It did not interfere with the progress of arts and 
industries, and in 1858 great prosperity had returned. 

"We were building the Lewiston mills and the Indian Orchard 
mills, and I was familiar with the whole business. From that time 
until the beginning of the war we saw the most steady progressive 
condition of prosperity in the textile art that I have ever known,^" 



TARIFF HISTORY. 33 



The tariff of 1857 having been purposely fixed to reduce the 
revenue, when the Civil War came on, of necessity, the rates had 
to be raised to meet the expenses of that great struggle, and were 
raised by the first act, approved by President Lincoln, August 5, 
1861, entitled: 

CIVIL WAR TARIFFS TO BE "TEMPORARY." 

"An act to provide increased revenues from imports, pay interest 
on public debts and for other purposes." 

The Act of July 14, 1862, was entitled: 

"An act increasing, temporarily, the duties on imports and for 
other purposes." 

The Act of April 29, 1864, was entitled: 

"Joint resolution to increase, temporarily, the duties on imports." 

And Senator Morrill, in explaining the Act of June 30, 1864, 
the main war tariff, said: 

"This is intended as a war measure, a temporary measure, and we 
must give it our support as such." 

The people generally had become so wedded to the happy effects 
of the low tariffs preceding the Civil War, that members of Con- 
gress had to be assured that these war rates, in effect protective, 
were to be only "temporary," and hence Senator Morrill spoke 
as he did. 

Senator Henry Wilson, in the Senate, in 1861, said: 

TARIFF OF 1857 COMMENDED. 

"It is very easy for a gentleman of the Northwest to rise on this 
floor and talk about protection to Pennsylvania and New England 
and to say that his people have no protection; but, sir, standing here 
today, I express it as my deliberate judgment that there are not 
half a dozen States — and I doubt whether there be among them all 
one — so little interested in changing the tariff as the State of Massa- 
chusetts. I say further, as the representative of that State, I know 
that in voting for this bill I am voting against the wishes of a large 
portion of the people of my State, who believe the present tariff 
better for us than your proposed tariff; and I vote, too, against my 
own deliberate judgment, for I had rather stand on the tariff of 
1857 than take this bill." 

Several Senators. "Then, why vote for it ?" 

Mr. Wilson. "I vote for it to increase the revenues of the Govern- 
ment. * * * I want no man to vote for this bill in order to protect 
the interests of Massachusetts; for the tariff of 1857, precisely and 
exactly as it stands upon your statute books today, so far as the 
productive industry of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is con- 
cerned, in all its various departments, amounting to $350,000,000 
annually, is the best tariff ever put upon the statute books of this 
country. That is my judgment; and by passing this bill we shall 
gain nothing as a State. I shall vote for the bill, but / vote for it to 
raise revenue; I vote for it as a revenue measure."' 

These "temporary" tariffs were approved by President Lincoln, 
who was not a "stand patter." As early as February 15, 1861, he 
said: 

"Every varying circumstance will require frequent modification as 
to the amount (of tariff) needed and the sources of supply. So far, 
there is little difference of opinion among the people." 



S4 TARIFF HISTORY. 



He approved many different tariff acts. 

It was during the operation of these high war tariffs that 
"protection" took deep root. Special interests grew up and fat- 
tened, immense fortunes were amassed, arming individuals with 
the power to perpetuate highly protective tariffs, against which 
Jackson, in his farewell address, warned the people in these 
patriotic words: 

PRESIDENT JACKSON'S FAREWELL ADVICE. 

The corporations and wealthy individuals who are engaged in large 
manufacturing establishments desire a high tariff to increase their 
gains. Designing politicians will support it to conciliate their favor 
and to obtain the means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of pur- 
chasing influence in other quarters. * * * Do not allow your- 
selves, my fellow-citizens, to be misled on this subject. The Federal 
Government cannot collect a surplus for such purposes without vio- 
lating the principles of the Constitution and assuming power whicli 
has not been granted. It is, moreover, a system of injustice, and if 
persisted in will lead to corruption and must end in ruin. 

There were few, if any, millionaires and no multi-millionaires, 
previous to the Civil War, the people generally were prosperous 
from 1846 to 1860, the low tariff era, but in 1864, President Lincoln 
had noticed a change had been wrought "as a result of the war," 
and on November 21, 1864, it is said, he wrote his friend William 
S. Elkins, of Illinois, the following letter: 

PRESIDENT LINCOLN. 

Yes, we may all congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is near- 
ing its close. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The 
best olood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon 
our country's altar that the nation might live. It has been, indeed, 
a trying hour for the Eepublie, but I see in the near future a crisis 
approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety 
of my country. 

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era 
of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the 
country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the preju- 
dices of the people until all the wealth is aggregated in a few hands 
and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety 
for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of 
war. God grant that my suspicions may "prove groundless. 

George H. Shibley's book, "The Money Question," page 232, 
with this foot note: 

The above was published in a collection of Lincoln's sayings, years 
and years ago, by Mr. Jesse Harper. Mr. Harper is still living, and is 
a respected citizen of Danville, 111. 

WHEN TRUSTS AND COMBINATIONS STARTED. 

Senator Sherman, March 24, 1890, said: 

"We know that within twenty years, for the first time in the history 
of our country, combinations have been made, involving from eighty 
to one hundred million dollars, combinations so strong that it is im- 
possible for any other combination to compete with them, combinations 
so powerful and exclusive as to reach every branch of trade and busi- 
ness in the United States. This has been going on during that time." 
(21, Cong. Rec, 2568.) 



TARIFF HISTORY. 35 



Senator Edmunds, March 27, 1890, in the same debate, said: 

"These great monopolies * * * have come up mainly in the 
last twenty or thirty years." 

REPUBLICAN TARIFF CHANGES. 

Until the Republicans and their side partners, the protected 
monopolists, succeeded in securing the enactment of a tariff law 
that gives them practically control of the American market, by 
prohibiting competition from abroad on all articles of domestic 
manufacture, they did not regard tariff schedules as sacred as 
they do today. As showing the Republican record in this 
particular, the following list of acts from an oflficial document 
issued by a Joint Congressional Committee in 1898 convicts the 
Republican party of conspiracy with the protected monopolists to 
continually tinker the tariff in their interests. The acts are as 
follows: 

Act of March 2, 1861. 
Act of August 5, 1861. 

Act to increase the duties on tea, coffee and sugar, December 24,1861. 
Act of July 14, 1862. 
Act of March 3, 1863, 

Joint resolution of April 29, 1864, temporarily increasing duties. 
Act of June 30, 1864, to increase duties. 

Act of March 3, 1865, amending certain acts imposing duties on 
imports. 

Act of May 16, 1866, imposing duties on live animals. 

Act of June 1, 1866, to protect lumbermen. 

Act of July 28, 1866. 

Act of March 2, 1867. 

Act of March 22, 1867. 

Joint resolution of March 2, 1867. 

Act of March 25, 1867. 

Act of March 26, 1867. 

Act of March 29, 1867. 

Act of February 3, 1868. 

Act of February 19, 1869. 

Act of February 24, 1869. 

Act of July 14, 1870. 

Act of December 22, 1870. 

Act of January 30, 1871. 

Act of March 5, 1872. 

Act of April 5, 1872. 

Act of May 1, 1872. 

Act of June 6, 1872. 

Act of June 10, 1872. 

Act of March 3, 1873. 

Act of May 9, 1874. 

Act of June 3, 1874. 

Act of June 18, 1874. 

Act of June 22, 1874. 

Another act of the same date. 

Act of February 8, 1875. 

Act of March 3, 1875. 

On March 4, 1875, the Republican party lost control of legisla- 
tion, and did not regain it until March 4, 1881. Then.it resumed 
business for two years, as follows: 

Joint resolution of March 11, 1882. 

Act of May 4, 1882. 

Act of December 23, 1882. . i : . 



36 TARIFF HISTORY. 



Act of March 3, 1883. 
Another act of the same date. 

On March 4, 1883, the Republican party lost control of legisla- 
tion until March 4, 1889, when it resumed business again, with 
the following result: 

Act of February 18, 1890. 

Act of June 10, 1890. 

Act of October 1, 1890 (the McKinley law). 

Act of December 15, 1890. 

Act of March 3, 1893. 

Again the Republican party lost control of legislation, but 
resumed on March 4, 1897, with these results: 

Act of July 24, 1897 (the Dingley law). 
Another act of the same date. 

Thus it appears thi.t in forty-five years the Republicans have 
changed or revised the tariff law forty-eight times. Deducting 
from forty-five years the sixteen years that the Republicans have 
not controlled legislation, shows that in twenty-nine years they 
tinkered with the tariff forty-eight times or an average of nearly 
once every seven months. 

But at last the Republicans and their allied friends and pro- 
viders of fat campaign barrels, the protected monopolists, having 
secured a measure that has so fostered and fattened the corpora- 
tions that they are quite willing to stand pat, especially as they 
have succeeded in defeating the reciprocity treaties, to provide 
for which the tariff schedules were purposely increased 20 per 
cent, beyond the rates that the protected monopolists named as 
sufficient to protect them from competition. 

Hence the people are now burdened with this extra rate plus 
a revenue and a protective rate — three all told. 

THE TARIFF LAW OF 1897— KNOWN AS THE DINGLEY 
TARIFF. 

The present tariff law of 1897 is the most nearly prohibitive of 
any such fiscal legislation in existence, except perhaps the new 
German maximum tariff rates, which are intended to prohibit 
other countries from competing in the German market, or to 
compel reciprocal concessions for German products in foreign 
markets. The facts about that law and the negotiations between 
the United States and Germany will be found on another page. 

WHEN REPUBLICANS FRAME TARIFFS, DEMOCRATS ARE 
EXCLUDED. 

When the Republican members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means in 1897 undertook the work of revising the tariff, they 
carefully excluded the Democratic members from participating, 
by holding their meetings at the Arlington Hotel. Notices were 
sent to most of the great industrial firms and corporations — many 
of whom were trusts — that if they would submit schedules cover- 
ing their particular industry, such schedule would be carefully 
considered. The result was that the hotel was for months 



TARIFF HISTORY. 37 



crowded with manufacturers, agents and attorneys representing 
special industries; and the committee incorporated in the present 
law the schedules they proposed, with but few changes. 

HOW THE TARIFF RATES WERE INCREASED. 

President McKinley was, of course, very much interested in the 
bill; and before it was acted upon by the full committee, it was 
submitted for his inspection. He demanded that a reciprocity 
clause with 20 per cent, concession be added, to allow reciprocity 
treaties with foreign nations to be negotiated; so that the drastic 
prohibitive rates might be modified with those nations who were 
willing to make similar reductions on exports from this country. 

The ultra-protectionists who controlled a majority of the com- 
mittee demurred to this proposition. But one of the arch fiends 
of protection was equal to the occasion, and proposed that a 
general increase of 20 per cent, on the rates on manufactured 
goods be added to the rates already agreed on, and that the 
reciprocity feature, sections 3 and 4, then be added. That is 
practically how the Dingley bill rates became so exorbitant, and 
virtually led to the swifter organization and sheltering of the 
industrial trusts that now monopolize the output, and control the 
price of about all the necessaries of life. The people who were 
to pay the taxes had no advocates there to defend their interests 
for, as previously stated, the Democratic members of the com- 
mittee were excluded from participating. After the bill had been 
completed a meeting of the whole committee was called together, 
and the bill was ordered reported by a party vote. A special rule 
was reported by the Committee on Rules, the debate limited to 
the least possible time; and the bill was passed. 

TARIFF RATES 100 PER CENT. OR MORE. 

As it is impossible to publish the whole tariff bill in this book 
on account of the space it would occupy, there will be found in 
the Appendices the Recapitulation of dutiable articles imported 
into the United States upon which 100 per cent, or more duty was 
paid during the year ending June 30, 1905. 

This recapitulation is taken from the report of the Bureau of 
Statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor entitled: 
"Imported Merchandise Entered for Consumption in the United 
States and Duties Collected Thereon, 1905." Following that will 
be found a list of the principal articles of general consumption 
on which less than 100 per cent, was collected, taken from the 
same official report. Following that will be found the "free list." 
It should be noted that every article not named in the free list 
is dutiable, although not specifically included in the various 
schedules, for section 7 of the tariff act provides that: All articles 
not enumerated in the bill are taxable at the same rate as similar 
articles, and when composed of two or more materials, shall pay 
the rate levied on the article which it most resembles, paying the 
highest rate of duty. That is called the blanket clause so that 
nothing can escape paying duty unless it is on the free list. 



38 TARIFF HISTORY. 



RECIPROCITY DEFEATED. 

Immediately after the passage of the Dingley bill, there was 
a general trend towards monopoly by the favored interests, and 
the organization of trusts and combines at once began. The only 
fear was the reciprocity features of the law which, if put in effect, 
would cut down trust profits 20 per cent, on such articles as were 
included in reciprocity treaties and in the case of some products 
would induce large importation, unless the monopolists would be 
willing to reduce their prices below the price of foreign goods. 

President McKinley, in good faith, appointed J. A. Kasson to 
negotiate reciprocity treaties; and he successfully did so with 
several nations. These treaties had to be ratified by the Senate 
(then, as now, Republican) which requires a two- thirds vote. The 
protected monopolists were powerful enough to prevent the ratifi- 
cation of those treaties through their friends, the Republican 
Senators; so the tariff rates are still in force at 20 per cent, above 
what was originally declared by the protected interests them- 
selves as sufficient for them to control the home market. 

THE TRUSTS RAISE PRICES. 

The defeat of the reciprocity treaties gave a new impetus to 
trust organization; and at once prices began to rise on manu- 
factured products. 

SHAW LETS THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG. 

That the protective tariff is the mother of trusts has been 
admitted by the highest authority in the United States on 
financial matters as will appear from the following extract from 
a speech of Secretary of the Treasury Shaw, made August 19, 
1905, at Morrisville, Vermont. He said: 

"The protective tariff is not the mother of trusts, though it is the 
parent of conditions that makes it profitable for capital to combine." 

No President ever required his cabinet officers to be in such 
close touch with him on all public questions as President Roose- 
velt, and the speech of his Secretary of the Treasury, from which 
the above extract was taken, must have come under his notice 
and had his approval. 

Mr. Havemeyer, before the Industrial Commission, said this: 

"Without the tariff I doubt if we should have dared to take the risk 

of forming the trust. It could have been done; but I certainly should 

not have risked all I had, which was then embarked in the sugar 

business, in a trust unless the business had been protected as it was 

by the tariff." 

******* 

"Steel rails were exported at the time the steel schedule was under 
discussion. They were being sent to England and Scotland. They 
can be produced for $15 a ton; they are worth $24 a ton. Now, the 
reason they are worth $24 a ton is because the people, under the tariff, 
are mulcted for the difference. I am not talking about things that 
are ancient history; I am talking about things that exist. I am not 
talking as to whether 100 per cent, was necessary or not. I am talk- 
ing about the effect of the tariff today, which is the mother of these 
trusts which are mulcting the people, and there is not a line of it free 
from this abuse today." 



THE TRUSTS^ AND COMBINES. 39 



THE TRUSTS AND CDMBINES. 

Does the tariff foster the so-called trusts and combinations?^ 

Have these trusts and combines by reason of the shelter of the 
tariff inordinately advanced the prices of their products? 

Do the trusts sell cheaper to foreigners than to our own people? 

If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, there can 
be no question but that the tariff should be revised. 

It has been conclusively shown in the chapter on export prices 
that the trusts are selling cheaper abroad than here, so that 
question is answered in the affirmative and need not be further 
considered. 

THE TARIFF FOSTERS TRUSTS. 

The evidence is overwhelming that the present tariff law has 
fostered trusts, as will be seen from the following: 

In Moody's Manual of Industrial and Miscellaneous Securities 
for 1900, an acknowledged authority on the organization of cor- 
porations, is given in the preface, pages 51-53, the capitalization 
of indiistrial corporations, incorporated prior to January 1, 1898, 
and from that date to January, 1900, is given as follows: 

INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED IN THE UNITED 

STATES. MANUFACTURING— IRON, STEEL, 

METALS AND MISCELLANEOUS. 

Prior to January 1, 1898, total all states, $811,161,300. From 
January 1, 1898, to January, 1900, total all states, $5,059,309,911. 
An increase of over 600 per cent, in two years. Do not those 
figures conclusively show that the Dingley tariff law, fostered 
trusts, or how can such an enormous increase of those corpora- 
tions immediately following its enactment, which are protected 
by the tariff, be explained? 

The evidence is irresistible that capital, urged on by trust 
promoters, seeing the enormous profits possible by the virtual 
monopoly granted by the tariff law, also saw that if the manufac- 
turing plants in these protected industries could be consolidated 
under one management and thus prevent competition between 
them in the United States, that the control of their products and 
the control of prices was also possible. In fact monopolies could 
be created and the consumers be plundered. In other words the 
tariff having, in a great measure, eliminated competition from 
abroad, through imports, the trusts have also eliminated com- 
petition at home through combinations. 

In the United States Statistical Abstract, 1905, on page 541, is 
given the value per capita of the "leading classes of necessary 
ai'ticles of daily consumption from July 1, 1860, to January 1, 
1906," from which the following is taken: 

Metals. Clothing. Misc. 

On July 1, 1897 $11,642 $13,808 $12,288 

On January 1, 190G 17.141 19.313 18.809 

Increased cost per capita per cent. ... 47. 40. 53. 



40 THE TRUSTS^ AND COMBINES. 

This shows an average increase in prices since the trusts have 
been organized of about 47 per cent., which is very close to the 
average rate of duty collected by the Government on all imports 
for the year 1904, which was 48.78 per cent. But this percentage 
must not be confounded with the average tax imposed by all the 
tariff schedules which exceeds 50 per cent, and on manufactured 
products averages over 70 per cent. 

As importers cannot import foreign products without paying 
freight, costs and import duties, there is nothing to prevent the 
trusts charging very nearly what the imported goods can be sold 
for here. All that was necessary was to eliminate competition 
among the manufacturers in the United States, and that has been 
accomplished, by the organization of the trusts and combines. 
That the trusts have thus increased their profits, to a great extent, 
is shown by the increased price they are obtaining for their 
products since the present tariff bill became a law in 1897. 

Do not these facts and figures answer affirmatively the three 
questions asked above and can there be any doubt that the passage 
of the Dingley act not only fostered trusts, but protects them in 
advancing prices and has allowed them to, sell cheaper abroad 
than at home. Therefore why should the present tariff law not 
be revised to at least the extent of reducing the trust protection 
so that resumption of a healthy competition from abroad will 
compel a reduction of trust prices on necessities? 

TRUSTS INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED. 

All the trusts are not incorporated companies; there are 
innumerable price and rate-fixing agreements, profit-sharing 
pools, selling or buying agencies, product restricting agreements, 
etc., of which the beef trust is a notorious example. There are, 
however, 287 industrial combinations or trusts incorporated, of 
which 168 marked in the table of trusts with an X which enjoy 
direct tariff benefits in more or less degree, and 38 others marked 
with an asterisk probably receive some benefit from the tariff. 
The products of most of the remaining trusts are on the tariff 
list, but their protection is more or less nominal. Of this list 21 
derive their monopoly chiefly from patent rights and 28 are based 
on municipal or other franchises, rights of way, etc., 19 are based 
on control of coal and other lands, mines, ore deposits, etc., 
exclusively. The balance of the unprotected trusts have in most 
cases some other element of monopoly which contributes to their 
strength. When the element of monopoly is small the general 
financial standing of the trust is relatively weak in nearly all 
cases. 

The table of trusts in the appendices also includes, besides 
industrial combinations, the large security holding (but not 
"operating) companies in the gas, electric light, electric and steam 
railroad industries. Hence a security-holding company, or "trust" 
such as the Bay State Gas Company, is included in the list, but 
the Consolidated Gas Company of New York is omitted. The 
many consolidated transportation and other franchise corpora- 
tions, not embraced in this list, such as railroad, traction, lighting 
and water combinations would aggregate in capitalization many 



th:^ fnusTs^ and COMBIN^JS. 41 



billions of dollars. The list, however, is limited to what are 
popularly known as "industrial trusts" and are all consolidations 
or absorptions of one kind or another. 

A TYPICAL TRUST. 

The United States Steel Corporation is the greatest of all trusts, 
its total capitalization being approximately $1,500,000,000. It is 
a true typical trust, a trust in the original sense of the word, 
because, as Prof. H. L. Wilgus of the University of Michigan has 
shown, it holds as a trustee the shares of the various constituent 
companies and votes for directors of the constituent concerns. 
Yet this trust has never been prosecuted or disturbed by the 
administration. Every person in the United States pays tribute 
to this gigantic corporation, for it controls the price of everything 
that is manufactured of steel, which everyone is compelled to use. 

THE STEEL TRUST ANALYZED. 

In Moody's Magazine for September, a reliable financial maga- 
zine, there is an article on the steel trust, from which the follow- 
ing is taken: 

Beforfe the Carnegie Steel Company became a part of the great Steel 
Corporation, and while Mr. H. C. Frick had an option on it at about 
half the price paid by the trust, its net earnings exceeded $30,000,000 
a year. Now we have a single industrial concern with net earnings 
of over $40,000,000, not for an entire year, but for a quarter of a year 
only. Its net earnings for the first half of the present year were 
$76,759,523, (5r at the rate of over $150,000,000 a year. From this 
$76,759,523 was deducted $3,217,578 for sinking funds; $9,674,168 
for depreciation and reserve funds; $5,500,000 for a special improve- 
ment and replacement fund; $11,459,833 for interest, and $23,500,000 
for additional construction. The total deductions amounted to 
$53,351,579, leaving a balance of $23,407,944. After paying dividends 
of $12,609,838 on the preferred and $5,083,025 on the common stock, 
there were left $5,715,081 of undivided earnings for the half year. 

The 1905 report gives in itemized statement of the "Rolled and 
Other Finished Products for Sale." The total number of tons was 
9,226,386. Allowing $35,000,000 for earnings and sales outside of 
rolled and other finished products, it would appear that these products 
sold for $550,000,000, or an average of $60 a ton. This is an ab- 
surdly high price. Much miore than one-third of the total tonnage 
was sold for less than $30 per ton. Probably not one-fourth sold for 
more than $40, and not one-tenth at more than $50 per ton. Experi- 
enced iron and steel men say that the average price per ton is not 
much, if any, above $40. The total gross sales of iron and steel, to 
outsiders, then, amounted to only about $400,000,000 in 1905. Adding 
$35,000,000 for other possible earnings and sales, we have $435,000,000, 
instead of $585,000,000, as the total of actual gross receipts. De- 
ducting the net profits of $119,787,658 and the selling and general 
expenses, and other operating expenses (taxes, $3,646,489.60), 
amounting in all to about $25,000,000, we find that the actual manu- 
facturing and producing cost of the product sold was at a liberal 
estimate, only about $300,000,000, instead of $440,013,432, as stated 
in the report. 

TARIFF PRODUCTS DISGUISED. 

Now, if net profits are $120,000,000 on goods that cost $440,000,000 
to produce, the rate of profit is about 27 per cent. If the goods cost 
but $300,000,000, the rate of profit is 40 per cent, on first cost. A 
profit of even 27 per cent, looks bad enough to a nation that is taxing 



42 2^^^ TRU&TB^ AND COMBINES. 

itself heavily in order to give a tariff bonus to this profit-earning in- 
dustry. A profit of 40 per cent, would, if clearly exhibited to the tax- 
paying people, be likely to prejudice them against this particular 
protected coiporation and, perhaps, to bring the tariff question again 
into politics. This might result unfortunately for the Steel Cor- 
poration and for its good friends, the "stand-patters." 

Undoubtedly the real object of padding the sales and costs of steel 
products is to disguise the tariff profits. That the people will, how- 
ever, soon take up the tariff question again and that, when they do 
take it up, they will make trouble for the protected "Steel Trust," is 
reasonably certain. In fact, the platforms now being adopted in the 
different States and the speeches being made by leading politicians 
nave an ominous sound to stockholders of this corporation. Appar- 
ently this "giant infant" will occupy the center of the stage when tae 
next tariff play is put on at Washington. It is clearly entitled to this 
pre-eminence. It has probably been more influential in preventing 
tariff revision, during the last four years, than has any half dozen 
other corporations. 

Those behind the political scenes know that its word has great 
weight with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House. If the 
head of this corporation writes a letter to Congressman Dalzell, of 
the Ways and Means Committee, advising Chairman Payne and the 
others of the committee not to open up the tariff question for any 
purpose or in any way, the committee may confidently be expected to 
"stand pat." 

EXPORT PRICES OF STEEL. 

With tariff duties removed from "all trust products sold cheaper to 
foreigners than to Americans," as the politicians put it, the common 
stock of the Steel Corporation would have value only for voting pur- 
poses. That this is true is evident when it is realized that the tariff 
profits of this corporation vary from about $40,00^,000 to $80,000,000 
a year. These may be roughly estimated by the difference between the 
export and home prices of goods sold. Although, as stated by Chair- 
man Gary to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, a few 
months ago, and as stated in the 1905 report, "the prices received for 
exports during the year were materially in excess of those previously 
received and approached more closely domestic prices," yet active iron 
and steel brokers and jobbers say that the present difference will 
average about $5 per ton on all goods sold by the Steel Corporation. 
They say, however, that export prices are so well covered up, vary so 
greatly to different countries, and fluctuate so widely and uncertainly 
from day to day, that but very few persons can estimate the difference 
closely. 

All goods sold abroad are sold through the United States Steel 
Products Export Company, whose stock is owned by the Federal Steel 
Company of the Steel Corporation. Much of the business is done 
through its London office.' 

On most of the goods sold abroad prices are quoted delivered in 
loreign ports. This selling company contracts in advance for tonnage 
on lines going to different foreign countries. Hence it can nearly 
always quote relatively lower prices delivered in foreign ports than 
for export from New York. The prices quoted vary with the amount 
of any particular product to be disposed of abroad and the foreign de- 
mand for this product. The prices quoted also depend upon the kind 
of international agreement existing as to the sale of any particular 
product in any particular port. 

INTERNATIONAL STEEL AGREEMENTS. 

For instance, an international agreement exists between the manu- 
facturers of steel rails in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, 
France and Belgium, which practically reserves the two American 
continents to our manufacturers, except that, as Canada gives heavy 
preferential duties to Great Britain, our manufacturers can sell in 



THE TRUSTS^ AND COMBINES. 43 



Canada only by cutting the English prices 20 or 25 per cent. Vir- 
tually the most of the world is divided up between, and partitioned oflf 
by, the world's steel rail manufacturers. Hence there is, today, but 
little competition in the sale of rails in any part of the earth. This is 
one of the reasons why there is now so little difference between export 
and home prices— although this difference will still average about $5 
per ton, in the opinion of experts. This is also one of the reasons why 
Chairman Gary was so anxious to testify as to export prices last 
spring. Similar international agreements, though, perhaps, less 
formal and definite, are said to exist between the manufacturers of 
plates, billets and other products. 

ESTIMATE OF TARIFF PROFITS. 

As the total sales of iron and steel by the Steel Corporation exceed 
9,000,000 tons a year, a difference of even $4.50 a ton, between export 
and domestic prices, amounts to over $40,000,000. Two years ago the 
average difference was not much less than $10 a ton. Of course, the 
total sales then were less than now. Even then, the difference, esti- 
mated on the total tonnage, was about $80,000,000. On some products 
the difference still exceeds $10 a ton, or % cent per pound. The fact 
that our exports of iron and steel are increasing rapidly indicates that 
the export business is very profitable. For the year ending June 30, 
1906, our exports of iron and steel amounted to 1,330,870 gross tons. 
The value of exports of iron and steel and manufactures thereof 
amounted to $160,984,985, which exceeded the exports of any previous 
year by more than $25,000,000. That there is ample margin for profits 
on steel' rails, even at $23 a ton, is evident from statements made by 
Mr. Charles M. Schwab, in a letter to Mr. Frick, just before the Steel 
Corporation was formed, and by statements made when the last quar- 
terly report was made public by the directors of the corporation. Mr. 
Schwab then said that steel rails cose less than $12 per ton to pro- 
duce. Apparently the statement is now informally authorized that 
the new methods and processes introduced by the Steel Corporation 
have reduced the cost of making steel $2 a ton. 

FAVORITISM TO FOREIGNERS. 

There is no sound economic reason why our manufactured products, 
and especially those protected by high tariff duties, should be sold 
cheaper to foreigners than to Americans. Steel is the greatest of all 
raw materials for manufacturing purposes. Hundreds of important 
industries consume large quantities of it. A difference of from $5 to 
$10 a ton for steel means the difference between success and failure 
for many manufacturers. Our manufacturers of machinery, imple- 
ments and tools are, in equity, entitled to as low prices as are given 
by our steel manufacturers. Our farmers should pay no more for 
fence wire, wire nails and tin plate than is paid by their foreign com- 
petitors in South America and Australasia. This un-American, sui- 
cidal policy has driven hundreds of millions of capital out of this 
country. It has gone into plants in foreign countries, where our steel 
and other products can be purchased more cheaply than in our oAvn 
markets. President McKinley, a year or two before he died, became 
convinced of the evils of this export system, and was taking steps to 
remedy them. Some of the government reports published in 1900 
severely condemn the practices of the manufacturers of steel rails, 
beams, plates, wire, wire nails, etc., for charging our consumers 20 or 
30 per cent, more for their goods than tliey charge foreigners for the 
same goods. Notice was, in this way, served upon these manufac- 
turers that if they did not reform they could expect to lose their 
tariff protection. 



44 EXPORT PRICES. 



EXPORT PRICES. 

HOW THE TRUSTS SELL CHEAPER ABROAD THAN HERE. 

In the campaigns of 1902 and 1904 the Republicans persisted in 
denying, both in their campaign books for those years and in 
Congress, that the tariff protected combines and associations, 
commonly called trusts, were selling their products cheaper in 
foreign countries than in the United States. The evidence, how- 
ever, published in the Democratic campaign books for 1902 and 
1904 so conclusively proved the truth of the statements that the 
Republican leaders in Congress have been forced since to publicly 
admit the fact. These admissions indicate how closely the 
Republicans are allied with the trusts and protected monopolists, 
for they now openly defend the plundering of the American people 
through the sale of trust products cheaper abroad than here by 
virtue of the restriction of competition by excessive import duties. 

The first authoritative admission was made by Mr. Dalzell in a 
speech delivered in the House of Representatives on May 26, 1906, 
which was published in the Congressional Record on May 26th, 
pages 7643-56. As Mr. Dalzell represents Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 
in the American Congress, and is entirely competent to speak for 
the conditions in the iron and steel industry, his admission shows 
that the protectionists have concluded that it is no longer 
desirable to deny the actual conditions. 

THE CHEAPEST IRON AND STEEL. 

During that speech of Mr. Dalzell the follov/ing colloquy 
occurred : 

Mr. Underwood — "Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania allow 
me to ask a question, not so much as to where we sell our goods, but 
how we make our goods? Can the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
name me any steel mill in the world that can make steel rails cheaper 
than they are made at Pittsburg? Can the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania name me any iron furnace in the world that can make pig 
iron cheaper than at Birmingham?" 

Mr. Dalzell — "I think not; and I am coming to that question, if 
the gentleman will have patience, in a few moments." 

Mr. Underwood — "Do we need protection to protect us against the 
market that we can meet cheaper than anybody else ?" 

Mr. Dalzell — "I will answer the gentleman's question in due course 
if he will have the patience." 

That question was never answered by Mr. Dalzell, to answer 
it truthfully would at once break down the whole theory of the 
protectionists, because if steel can be manufactured cheaper at 
Pittsburg than anywhere else, and iron in Birmingham cheaper 
than elsewhere, there can be no excuse for a protective tariff on 
such products, either to protect the manufacturers or the laboring 
men employed in those industries; for no one can successfully 
compete with them. But Mr. Dalzell continued the discussion by 
gaying; 



EXPORT PRICES. 45 



REPUBLICAN LEADERS ADMIT SELLING CHEAPER 
ABROAD THAN HERE. 

"Do we sell goods cheaper abroad than we do at home? Un- 
doubtedly, sometimes — certain kinds of goods — the kind of goods the 
sale of which promises us a foothold in a foreign market, and to a 
limited extent, to wit, to the extent of our surplus. Why? Well, 
for a number of reasons — all of them patent to business men. The 
first and foremost, because our home production exceeds our home 
consumption; and the excess of production must be sold in a foreign 
market or our factories and our workmen remain during a portion 
of each year idle." 

This acknowledgment of the Democratic claim that the trusts 
are selling cheaper abroad than here of "certain kinds of goods" — 
those goods of course that the steel trust and other combines can 
manufacture cheaper here than similar goods can be manufac- 
tured abroad, was followed by another astounding admission by 
Mr. Dalzell, which will be found on the same page of the Record, 
as follows: 

Mr. Dalzell — "We have in this country, by reason of the skill of our 
workmen, by reason of our general prosperity, by reason of our in- 
ventive genius, by reason of our improved machinery, arrived at a 
period when we can make in this country on an average of nine 
months all that the country can consume in the year. 

"It is a plain business proposition whether or not we shall run 
the year round and sell all of our goods in any market, or whether 
we shall run nine months and close up our factories the other three. 
But that is not the only reason. Another reason is because, in order 
to gain a foothold in foreign markets, the price must he regulated so 
as to meet the price in the foreign market with which we come in 
competition. And another reason is because, in our contest for en- 
trance into the world's markets, we have to encounter a system of 
tariffs, of syndicates, of cartels, of 'bounties, all of which were made 
for the purpose of excluding us from those markets." 

This further acknowledgment that the trusts "can produce in 
this country, on an average of nine months, all that the country 
can consume in the year," shows that about one fourth of trust 
products, or the products of three months of our manufacturing, 
must he sold ahr-oad unless our factories and workshops are shut 
down for three months out of the twelve months; although further 
along in his speech Mr. Dalzell made a labored argument to prove 
that the amount of goods sold abroad cheaper than here only 
amounted to three-tenths of one per cent, of our total manufac- 
tures. He quotes Senator Gallinger, another ardent protectionist, 
and not a reliable statistician, as his authority. Senator Gallinger 
obtained his estimate from the partisan majority report of the 
Industrial Commission; but Hon. Thomas W. Phillips, Republican 
member of the Commission, made a supplemental report in which 
he very severely attacked the majority report for suggesting that 
three-tenths of one per cent, is a fair estimate of the amount sold 
cheaper abroad than here. 

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION REPORT. 

But what did the Industrial Commission say several years since 
on this subject? Its conclusions will be found as to export prices 
in volume 19, on pages 626-7, as follows: 

"In about 20 per cent, of the cases covered by the Commission's 
returns the export prices have ruled lower than those charged to 
borne ponsuiners, Tlie practice is quite comioon in JtU countries, ete. 



46 EXPORT PRICES. 



"That in view of the extent and protection of our manufacturers, of 
our growing export trade and the sharp competition being encoun- 
tered in foreign markets, of the practice by some exporters of making 
lower prices abroad than at home, and the desirability of protecting 
the consumer as well as the producer, without awaiting other legis- 
lation, the Congress provide for a commission to investigate and 
study the subject and to report as soon as possible what concessions 
in duties may he made without endangering wages or employment 
at home, what advantages abroad may be obtained therefor, and also 
to suggest measures best suited to gain the end desired." 

Note, that this non-partisan body with a majority of its mem- 
bers Republican does not say "whether concessions" shall be made 
or not, but "what concessions," for that some concessions must 
be made is evidently their opinion and recommendation. But the 
Republican party has paid no heed to the recommendations of the 
Commission of its own creation although over seven years have 
elapsed. 

Hon. Thomas W. Phillips, did not sign this majority report, but 
in his supplemental report he said: 

FOUR-FIFTHS OF EXPORTERS FAIL TO ANSWER AS TO 
EXPORT PRICES. 

"There are a large number of industries in which it is in evidence 
that the domestic price is much higher than the export price. I do 
not agree that the answers to inquiries addressed by the Commission 
to exporters indicate that the trusts are not chargeable with this 
practice to any serious extent. Out of 2,000 schedules of inquiries 
sent out, there were received only 416 replies, and only a very few 
of these replies came from corporations known popularly as trusts. 
(Vol. XIII, p. 726.) The fact that about 75 answers indicated lower 
prices abroad than at home is significant, when it is noted that more 
than four-fifths of those addressed failed to answer, and that natur- 
ally those who are chargeable with such discrimination would be the 
ones who would decline to reply. 

"Several witnesses before the Com.mission on behalf of the trusts 
admitted that their export prices were lower than their domestic 
prices, but they contended that this was necessary in order to work 
off their surplus and to keep their establishments running full time, 
and that the fact that their surplus products could also be worked 
off by lower prices at home, and that it is the tariff which en- 
courages them to cause a domestic surplus by restricting domestic 
consumption through high prices." 

Why did four-fifths of the exporters fail or refuse, though 
called on, to answer? Because they would evidently have been 
compelled to admit that they were selling their surplus products 
cheaper to foreigners than to our own people. 



SENATOR ALDRICH ADMITS IT. 

But we have another Republican, a much greater authority 
than Mr. Dalzell, who at least also acknowledges that the trusts 
sell cheaper abroad than here. When Senator Bacon, of Georgia, 
was making his great speech on the question of restricting the 
purchase of supplies for the Panama Canal to the products of 
this country, he proposed an amendment requiring that no greater 
price should be paid than similar supplies were being sold for 
expprt to foreigo countries. This speeclj wUl be found in the 



EXPORT TRICES. 47 



Congressional Record, June 2, 1906, on pages 7943-6. During its 
delivery Senator Bacon yielded to Senator Aldricli, of Rhode 
Island, the Republican leader of the Senate, who said: 

"It is a well known fact, about which there is no dispute, that 
producers in the United States and in every one of the great in- 
dustrial nations sell portions of their products from time to time 
at a less price to people of other countries than to their regular 
customers at home." 

Thus we have the Republican leader in the Senate, and one of 
the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives acknowl- 
edging the truth of the Democratic contention that the trusts sell 
cheaper abroad than here.' Of course they tried to qualify their 
statement so as to take the sting out of it, but that was to be 
expected from such strong partisans and protectionists with close 
trust connections. 

SECRETARY SHAW ALSO ADMITS IT. 

On page 19 of the Republican National Campaign Book of 1904, 
Mr. Shaw, Secretary oL the Treasury, who of course is the best 
Republican authority on the tariff because such fiscal matters are 
under the control of his department, is quoted as saying: 

"Our opponents lay much stress upon the fact that some American 
manufactures are sold abroad cheaper than at home. Our friends 
sometimes deny this, and they sometimes apologize for it, and a few 
in times past have downed our opponents in recommending a re- 
moval of tariff from all such articles. It is useless to deny, in my 
judgment, unwise to apologize, and a little short of foolishness to 
attempt to remedy the assumed evil in the manner proposed by the 
oppositioij." 

BABCOCK (REP.) GIVES EVIDENCE. 

It will be remembered that Representative Babcock, who was 
chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee from 1894 
to 1904, introduced a bill in the Fifty-seventh Congress to revise 
the steel schedules, gave evidence in an interview in the Wash- 
ington Post, September 21, 1901, which said: 

"One of the points which impressed me of the desirability of re- 
vising the steel schedule was information I obtained in Scotland of 
the placing of an order for 20,000 tons of American steel. When 
you stop to think that 20,000 tons of steel mean more than 1,000 
carloads, it will not do to say that such an order placed abroad by 
our manufacturers is only their surplus product." 



48 aoVEnNMENf m partnership with monopolies. 

THE GOVERNMENT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 
^^MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS." 

AMERICAN PRODUCTS SOLD CHEAPER ABROAD THAN 

AT HOME. 

Mr. F. A. Wilmot, President of the Wilmot & Hobbs Manufac- 
turing Company, Bridgeport, Conn., wrote to the Iron Age, May, 
1901, a letter on this subject which, in part, reads: 

''To the Editor : 

"Noticing that you have given considerable prominence in recent 
issues to the organization of the Manufacturers' Association of Bridge- 
port, and to the end that the manufacturers' associations of other cities 
and other manufacturers in otlier cities where manufacturers' associa- 
tions are in process of formation or are contemplated, v\^e would sug- 
gest that you give due prominence to the position which these manu- 
facturing associations in the various cities, particularly along the 
Atlantic seaboard and Canadian border, and especially in New Eng- 
land, are taking as regards their present handicap in the cost of raw 
material, such as coal, coke, iron, ore, pig iron, steel ingots and billets, 
and their desire to have these commodities placed by Congress imme- 
diately upon the free list. 

THEY BELIEVE THAT AS THESE MATERIALS ARE PRO- 
DUCED CHEAPER IN THIS COUNTRY THAN IN ANY OTHER 
PORTION OF THE WORLD, AND ARE SOLD ABROAD AT LOWER 
PRICES THAN ALONG THE SEABOARD AND CANADIAN BOR- 
DER, THE INDUSTRIES WHICH PRODUCE THEM ARE NO 
LONGER INFANT AND DO NOT NEED PROTECTION. THEY 
BELIEVE THAT PROTECTION, SO CALLED, IS BUT ANOTHER 
TERM FOR GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO MONOPOLIES AND 
TRUSTS. THIS POSITION THE GOVERNMENT AS IT NOW 
EXISTS CAN ILL AFFORD TO ASSUME, NOR CAN IT ALLOW 
THE PEOPLE TO FEEL THAT IT IS DRIFTING INTO SUCH 
POSITION W^HERE IT IS SO WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH 
GIGANTIC TRUSTS ; FOR WHEN THE PEOPLE REALIZE SUCH 
TO BE -THE CONDITION, THEY WILL UNDOUBTEDLY RISE IN 
THEIR MIGHT, AND BY THEIR VOTES CHANGE THE CON- 
DITIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT WHICH PERMITS SUCH 
CONDITIONS. * * ■"- It is to be hoped that the Government of the 
United States will appreciate the position and make such changes in 
tariff regulations or duties from time to time as will result in putting 
upon the free list such commodities as do not further need protection 
on the score of their being infant industries." — Industrial Com. Rept., 
Byrom W. Holt's testimony. 



FURTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 49 



FURTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 

EXPERT EVIDENCE ON DUMPING. 

It would seem almost unnecessary to take more space to further 
prove that most of the trusts sell cheaper to foreigners than to 
our own people, but as at least three speeches were made in the 
House of Representatives denying the proposition, namely by 
Grosvenor, of Ohio; Boutell, of Illinois, and Hepburn, of Iowa, 
who substantially stated that we only sell shop-worn and obsolete 
goods cheaper in Europe than we are selling them at home. The 
following evidence is added: 

STEEL RAILS SOLD 40 PER CENT. CHEAPER ABROAD 
THAN HERE. 

Senator Bacon in his speech above quoted introduced two letters 
addressed to him personally, the writers of which he stated "were 
known to him personally and the accuracy of their statements 
can be most thoroughly and confidently vouched for." They are 
published in the Congressional Record, June 2, pp. 7944-5, and are 
as follows: 

Macon, Ga., February 23, 1904. 
Hon. a. O. Bacon, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Sir — I beg to own receipt of yours of the 20th, and have 
carefully noted same. 

I recall very distinctly my conversation with you on the subject of 

steel rails purchased by my company from the company, and 1 

take pleasure in giving you the details of the transaction, asking you, 
however, to refrain from mentioning the names of the parties. 

The extension of our road, some 40 miles, was decided upon and 
cash provided for it early in the spring of 1901. Owing to the de- 
mand at that time for steel in all forms and the probability of an 
advance in price, it seemed wise to take up the matter of the pur- 
chase of the necessary rails at once. Inquiries, therefore, were ad- 
dressed and mailed to all the leading steel rail manufacturers in the 
country, asking for tenders on 60 miles of 70-pound steel rail de- 
livered at Savannah or Macon, the point of delivery to be optional 
with us. 

We received prompt responses, but there was practically no dif- 
ference in the bids, the eastern rail mills contiguous to tide water 
quoting practically the same price delivered at Savannah and a 
correspondingly higher price for Macon delivery, the interior rail 
mills making a lower price for Macon delivery and a higher price 
for Savannah delivery. It was very evident to me tbat the field had 
been divided by the manufacturers and that no one of them would 
sncroach upon the territory assigned to the others. 

After endeavoring in vain to obtain better prices than those quoted, 

we finally accepted the bid of the ■ ' — Steel Company, and placed 

Dur order with them for 5,618 tons of rail at $29 per ton, based upon 
ielivery at tide water. This would enable us to arrange our own 
freight rate to Savannah and efi'ect some saving in the cost of the 
rails. The order was declined on these terms, the Steel Com- 
pany refusing to make any price f. o. b. mill, but insisting upon 
ielivered price. 

The matter was then taken up with interior mills, who were per- 
fectly willing to make a price f. o. b. mill, but we were unable to 
)btain any concession in all-rail rates which would reduce the cost 

)f the rail below that quoted by the — Steel Company for de- 

ivery at Savannah. 



50 FURTHER EVID13NCE PRODUCED. 

The whole transaction in the meantime had been handled by wire, 

owing to the demands of the Steel Company that it be closed 

at once, as the price would be advanced. 

I made one more effort. Some friends of mine were interested in a 
railroad project in Central America, and I broached the subject to 

the representative of the — s Steel Company who had come here 

to close the matter with me. I told him that my friends had made 
some inquiry of me as to the cost of construction in that country, 
and I should like to know at what price he would sell me steel rails 
delivered at tide water for shipment to Honduras. He promptly 
quoted me $20 per ton. Further inquiry developed the fact, how- 
ever, that they would only load vessels chartered to a foreign port 
and that the charter should be an essential part of the contract. 
The wall was complete. There was nothing left for me to do but to 
place my order and to thank God it was no worse, as within two 
days thereafter steel rails advanced $2 per ton. 

Allowing a liberal amount for cost of delivery at tide water, which 
in this particular case would have been very small, we American 
citizens paid to this American industry $33,000 in excess of what 
foreigners would have been compelled to pay. And $33,000 would 
have put up a very handsome library filled with standard books on 
protection. 

And this was a very small transaction — only 50 miles of railroad! 
Payments were cash, and we neither needed nor asked any conces- 
sions in the matter of time. Because we were Americans, interested 
in the development of a small section of our country, involving faith 
and sacrifices, we were compelled to pay out as a bonus in excess of 
$600 per mile. 

These are the facts. Unfortunately, I had only the verbal quotation 
on the rails for foreign shipment, but I have no doubt that it was at 
least the top of the market, but I have the full correspondence in my 
files covering the rest of the transaction. 

Owing to the necessity for prompt action, I was unable to secure 
prices from foreign rail makers, but it would be foolish to imagine 
that that avenue had not also been closed to us. 

I have written you hurriedly, and may not have given you all the 
facts or as clearly as you desire. If there is still opportunity and i 
can further elucidate the matter, please advise me, and I shall take 
pleasure in doing so. 

For purely business reasons I must ask you not to mention the 
names 1 have given. Personally, I should like to see it given the widest 
publicity ; and if the statement is of any use to you, I shall be glad, as 
an American and as a Eepublican. Very truly yours, 

J. T. WRIGHT. 

Mr. Bacon — "I desire to say, with reference to the blanks in the 
letter, that, in accordance with the request of the writer, who, by 
the way, is from the State of Indiana, I have omitted the names; 
but I can furnish the names omitted to any Senator who desires to 
know them. I have omitted them from this reading in deference to 
the request of the writer, which he stated was for business reasons 
solely. 

"I will now ask the Secretary to read the next letter, which is 
from a gentleman who was then the president of the Mexican National 
Railroad, a railroad lying partly in Texas and partly in Mexico. That 
letter was addressed to me also. The caption is left off there." 

The Secretary read as follows : 

I am in receipt of your letter of the 20th. It would not be any 
embarrassment for me to give you the information you ask if it were 
possible for me to do so, but I believe it will not be practicable. I 
am so overwhelmed with work preparatory to getting my affairs in 
shape for leaving my present position with the company that I have 
no time to devote to anything outside of my official work, and to get 
any accurate information would require going back into the files of 
the purchasing agent's office, and the man who is familiar with this 
whole business is leaving for Mexico City today. 



FURTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 51 

For a long time past all our purchases have been made on the basi§ 
of export prices, even though they have occasionally stopped in Texas, 
the competition being keen enough to produce this cut in prices in 
favor of the Texas shipments, so that it has been some time past since 
we have had any material differences, but those dififerences do exist 
and to an iniquitous extent. I use the word "iniquitous" because it 
certainly seems so to me when the citizens of the United States are 
required under the laws of the country to pay a higher price to the 
manufacturers than these same manufacturers are willing to make 
and sell to foreign people for. In 1902 I secured bids on steel rails 
for Mexico from United States mills at about $24 delivered at Tam- 
pico, while the price I paid at the same time for rail for our road in 
Texas was $28 at the mills. 

I have understood that the Canadian Pacific has just bought a 
large lot of rails from the United States Steel Corporation at $21. 
It, IS asserted and denied that the $21 is for delivery at Montreal. 
If it is, the price at the mill would be about $19, while the price 
for United States roads is still $28 at the mills, I do not know this 
of my own knowledge, and it is merely current report. 

When I saw that you had introduced a bill in Congress to inquire 
into these differences in prices, I was very much pleased that you 
had started the inquiry, and intended to write yovi a line expressing 
myself in that sense, but I was interrupted by one thing and another, 
and finally it escaped me. The source from vv'hich you are seeking 
to get this information Avill be oflicial and thoroughly authentic, and 
it seems to me it should supply you with material quite sufiicient to 
establish your case. * * * With kind regards, I remain, yours very 
truly, W. G. RAOUL. 

Senator Bacon said: 

"I want to call attention to the fact, the pertinent fact, disclosed 
in that letter. There is a railroad which, as I stated before, runs 
partly in Texas and partly in Mexico, and the statement made by 
the president of the road, for whose credibility I entirely vouch, a 
man beyond possibility of suspicion, to the contrary is that upon 
that part of his railroad in Texas he was charged $28 at the mill 
for rails; that from the same com.pany, at the same time, he was 
priced rails and furnished rails at $24, delivered at Tampico. Allow- 
ing $4 for freight, which is not unreasonable, and which I presume 
was about the freight, there ^was a difference of $8 between the price 
charged by the same mill at the same time to the same consumer for 
rails for the same railroad, part of it lying in Texas and part of it 
lying in Mexico — $28 for the rails to be used on the part of the 
road lying in Texas and $20 for the rails to be used on the part of 
the road lying in Mexico." 

Those concrete cas^s ought to satisfy even the greatest Repub- 
lican unbeliever of the fact that the steel trust sells cheaper 
abroad than here. On May 1, 1906, the representatives of the 
Steel Rail Pool met, and it was published in all the morning 
newspapers of May 2, and "fixed the price" of steel rails at $28 
a ton for the next fiscal year beginning July'l. That was a 
distinct case of a "combination in restraint of trade," but neither 
the President or his Attorney-General appear to have noticed it, 
for no attempt has been made to disrupt this illegal "pool" or 
combination. 



SHIP BUILDING MATERIAL. 



SHIP BUILDING MATERIAL 

ALSO SOLD CHEAPER ABROAD THAN HERE. 

In the report of the Merchant Marine Commission of 1906, 
volume 3, page 77, the testimony of Mr. Nixon, a ship builder 
known to all the world as a man of character and great experience, 
was a witness before the Commission composed of members of 
both Houses of Congress at its hearing held in New York city, 
beginning on May 23, 1905, gave evidence as follows: 

EXPERT TESTIMONY ON DUMPING. 

Senator Mallory — '"There is another question. Some years ago we 
were shipping steel plates to the Clyde. As I remember, we had some 
very good evidence to that effect before Congress. Quite a large con- 
tract was made, and it was said that we were underselling the British 
steel-plate makers on their own ground. Do you remember whether 
or not that was correct? That was about four or five j'-ears ago." 

Mr. Nixon — "I heard the statement at th^ time. I have no doubt 
that some contracts were placed in this country. I merely had to take 
the statement as I saw it printed. I had no connection with it." 

Senator Mallory — "Since then these plates have gone up so that at 
the present time there is about one-third difference ?" 

Mr. Nixon — "They are selling approximately at $38 a ton here as 
against $31 there. But tJiat is the price here for American materials. 
Undoubtedly American material can he bought in England very much 
more cheaply than here at present. 

Now, on page 79 of the same volume, Kepresentative McDermott, 
of New Jersey, questioning him : 

Representative McDermott — "Your proposition is this: American 
plates can be sold abroad, or are sold abroad, for some business reason, 
at a less price than they are sold here ?" 

Mr. Nixon— "Yes." 

Representative McDermott — "Plates of equal quality, but of foreign 
manufacture, can be imported for less than you can buy domestic 
plates here?" 

Mr. Nixon — "Yes." 

Before the same Commission and in the same report, on the 
volume and pages given, this further testimony was given by other 
witnesses conclusively showing that our trusts and combines are 
persistently selling abroad cheaper than here, which is shown as 
follows: 

Mr. A. A. Moss (p. 1722, vol. 3)^"I believe that the steel trust is 
responsible to a great extent in discriminating against the American 
shipbuilder in the way of prices, as plates and other material made 
by the American steel trust are shipped to England and sold at 25 
to 33 per cent, less than they can be had in this country." 

Mr. McGregor (p. 782, vol. 2) — "I picked up a newspaper in the 
month of February and read as a piece of news that one of the in- 
dependent steel companies, not in the trust, in Pennsylvania, had just 
sold 40,000 tons of steel rails to the Canadian Pacific Railroad at 
$21.50 per ton. * * * You remember that when Congressman 
Johnson was in the House he made the statement, as a steel manu- 
facturer, that he could make steel rails at a profit of $2 per ton and 
deliver them on the cars at Johnstown, on the Cambria Works, at 
$18.50. That statement is on record in Congress, and it is not dis- 
puted. * * * Oh, they did contradict him, but the question here 
for usj I think, gentlemen, is. Did the^ successfully contradict hjw? 



SHIP BUILDING MATERIAL. 6S 

Because he was at that time one of the largest manufacturers of 
steel rails in the United States. As a manufacturer of steel rails, he 
simply took his books and showed that he paid higher wages than 
any other concern in the trust, and he was then a member of the 
steel trust. Those are facts on record." 

The above statement was made before the Commission June 27, 1904. 

Mr. James C. Wallace, of the American Shipbuilding Company, on 
June 28, 1904, gave this testimony before the Commission: 

* * * "Recently one of our largest steel mills sold abroad 100,000 
tons of steel plate. They delivered it, I understand, at Belfast at $24 
per ton. That would practically mean, with ocean rates as they are, 
$22 a ton at tide water. They are charging us today at Pittsburg 
$32 per ton. About four years ago our company took a contract from 
the American Navigation Company for building here on the Lakes two 
7,000-ton ocean ships. • * * We took the contract at a price about 
equal to the price for which they could be built in England at that 
time. Steel was then very much lower than it is today. Steel pools 
had not then been formed." 

Representative Grosvenor — "I want to know who bought the steel 
you speak of?" 

Mr. Wallace— "The Harland & Wolfe Company." 

Representative Grosvenor — "From whom did they buy it?" 

Mr. Wallace — "The United States Steel Corporation." 

Representative Grosvenor — "Do you know where it was shipped 
from ?" 

Mr. Wallace — "I do not. I presume from the Carnegie Steel Com- 
pany. I do not know that, though, for a fact, as they have so many 
mills." 

Representative Grosvenor — "And their present price to you is $32 ?" 

Mr. Wallace — "Thirty-two dollars a ton, Pittsburg." 

Representative Grosvenor — "And that was laid down at Belfast at 
$22 ?" 

Mr. Wallace— "At $24." 

The Chairman — ^"Wliat does it cost to transport it from this country 
to Ireland?" 

Mr. Wallace — "As near as I understand, the rates at the present 
time are $2 a ton. That would be $22 a ton at tide water." • • • 

Representative Grosvenor— "What is the freight from Pittsburg to 
tide water?" 

Mr. Wallace — "I think it is about $1.40 a ton. I am not positive 
about that, though." 

Mayor Johnson — "That would make $11.40 difference between the 
Pittsburg price to you and the price abroad ?" 

Mr. Wallace — "Yes. I am not positive about just what that rate 
is." * * • 

Representative Minor — "Mr. Wallace, would there be the same dif- 
ference between all material that goes into your frames — ^your shapes, 
r suppose?" 

Mr. Wallace — "Y^s, sir." 

Representative Minor — '"Beams, rivets, etc. — would the same dif- 
ference be maintained between the cost in Europe and the cost here ?" 

Mr. Wallace — "It is so today. Plates, beams, angles and channels 
are now $32 per ton, Pittsburg." * * * 

Mr. Goulden — ^"Is the price as low abroad on other things as it is 
on the plate ?" 

Mr. Wallace — "Yes, sir. Roll prices are the same at the present 
time." 

Representative Minor — "Do they lay that down in England at the 
present time at that price?" 

Mr. Wallace — "Twenty-four dollars a ton in Belfast. They made 
no secret of it. It was published in the papers at the time." 

* ****»♦ 

The Chairman — "I presume that in the instance you have cited as 
to the sale of steel abroad, you have taken the pains to verify it be- 
yond peradventure ?" 



54 SHIP BUILDING MATERIAL. 

Mr. Wallace — "It was given to me by the assistant sales agent of 
the Carnegie Steel Company." 

Senator Penrose — "Was any reason given for the difference in 
price ?" 

Mr. Wallace — "Nothing but that they wanted to keep their mills in 
operation." 

Representative Minor — ■"! think, Mr. Chairman, that the testimony 
of Mr. Edwin S. Cramp is about the same as that of Mr. Wallace on 
prices abroad and here." 

The Chairman — "Yes; I think it is. I want to say what I think I 
am privileged to say, as chairman of this Commission, that, if the 
situation is as has been described, it is a great outrage." [Applause.] 

Mr. Wallace — "We have thought so for some time, and we have 
thought that in some way it ought to be remedied." 

The above testimony of Mr. Wallace appears on pages 811, 812, 
813 and 814, volume 2 of the report. 

EVIDENCE OF A PROTECTIONIST. 

In volume 3, page 1893, of the Senate hearings before the Com- 
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, is reported the 
evidence of Mr. Ramsay, president of the Wabash and Ann Arbor 
Railroad and other railroads. That railroad runs through both 
American and Canadian territory and Mr. Ramsay has purchased 
steel rails to be laid in both countries. He testified as follows: 

"Senator, if you will permit me, I will illustrate it by the rail ques- 
tion: Railroads in this country pay $28 at the mill for rails. The 
same maker loill sell those rails to the Wahash for use in Canada at 
$20 to $21, provided they are used in Canada. We dare not use them 
in the United States. Now, we say to the makers of the rails, 'We 
can buy English rails, delivered on these shores, at $20 a ton.' Then 
Uncle Sam steps in and says, 'Yes; you can do that, but if you buy 
those rails you will have to pay to Uncle Sam $8 a ton tariff on 
them.' On lumber there is a $2 tariff rate, and that. Senator Dolliver, 
would add $75 to your house in Kansas or Iowa, four times as much 
as the railroad rate will. The tariff duties on steel and all these 
things force the railroads to pay to the makers of steel these high 
rates. Why does Uncle Sam do that ? Why did they do it originally ? 
To promote industry and commerce. And that is why they should 
permit the railroads to make low rates on traffic going abroad and 
low rates between various communities on the long haul, to do the 
very same thing. The Government pays a bonus in one case. In the 
other case they do not." 

Mr. Ramsay is a Republican, and testified: "I am in favor of 
the tariff, and so are all railroad men." 

EVIDENCE FROM THE "IRON AGE." 

The Iron Age is a great trade journal of all matters connected 
with the iron and steel industry and is of course in sympathy 
with the manufacturers who support it. In publishing news of 
the trade it represents, it says: 

"On November 12, 1903, the Iron Age quoted American bars in Eng- 
land at 82 shillings, or less than $20 per ton, and in America at 
$1.42%, or $31.92 per ton. Thus the independent manufacturer of tin 
plate in America, who has to buy his bars of the steel trust, must pay 
more than 50 per cent, more for his chief raw material than is paid by 
his foreign competitor. This is 'protection to home industries' with a 
vengeance. 



SHIP BUILDING MATERIAL. 55 

"The same number of the Iron Age tells us that American steel 
beams, plates, angles, channels and rivet steel are being sold in Canada 
at from $9 to $11 per ton less than the prices charged here. 

"The Iron Age of December 17 enumerated a great number of arti- 
cles of American make which sold largely in South Africa. Nearly- 
all are sold there at prices far below those charged here. Thus it ap- 
pears that shovels, which our shovel trust sells here at 90 cents each, 
are sold there at 36 1/^ cents. This Iron Age also contains information 
showing that United States Steel Corporation was, early in January, 
offering steel billets in Lanarkshire, England, at 75 shillings per ton. 
Deducting $5 for freight and other transportation costs, the trust gets 
about $14 per ton for billets for export, while its price to American 
consumers is $23." 

The New York Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin 
of July 30, 1904, said: 

"One of the most interesting features of the steel situation is an 
important sale of several thousand tons of steel plates for export, 
the price of £5 delivered at Newcastle-on-the-Tyne netting the mills 
about 90 cents per net ton, f. o. b. Pittsburg. It should be remem- 
bered that sales are made in the English market by the gross ton; 
allowing $3.50 freight rates and a slight allowance for insurance, this 
price would net the mills $20 gross, or $1.80 per net ton, or 90 cents 
per hundred, against $1.60 per hundred for domestic business." 

As that journal is looked upon as an authority by bankers and 
business men its evidence cannot be disputed. 



OFFICIAL REPORT. 

In the August, 1900, report of the United States Bureau of 
Statistics on commerce and finance there is a report on the 
difference between the price at which iron and steel products are 
sold at home and in foreign markets, which shows that this 
bureau, although notoriously run in the interest of the protection 
system was compelled to note the fact of the advantage foreigners 
were getting by the "dumping" process of the trusts and advise 
against its continuance. It also shows that what our merchant 
marine needs is cheaper materials rather than a direct subsidy 
of the people's money out of the United States Treasury. Mark 
what this government report says: 

'The progress of work on sliipbuilding in the United States has like- 
wise heen retarded, hecause 7nakers of steel materials required a higher 
price from the American consumers thorn, they did from the foreign 
consumers for substantially similar products. Of course, American 
exporters have to get foreign contracts in competition with foreign 
plate makers, who are excluded from our domestic market. In addi- 
tion to this, American export plate makers are interested in prevent- 
ing the establishment of plate manufacturing in their customer nations 
abroad, and to that end bid low enough to discourage foreign nations 
from entering the field for producing their own plate at home. The 
progress of domestic manufacturers of iron and steel goods may like- 
wise be handicapped by the sale of iron and steel in their manufac- 
tured state at so much lower a price to foreigners than to domestic 
consumers as to keep the American competitor out of foreign markets 
generally. The natural limit to such a policy of maintaining a higher 
level of prices for these materials at home than abroad is found in the 
restriction of domestic consumption and the import duty. If restric- 
tion of consumption at home does not operate to prevent the short- 
sighted policy of discrimination against domestic development of 



56 8HIP BUILDING MATERIAL. 

manufacturing industries, the other contingency is more or less sure to 
rise, namely, the demand for the reduction of the tariff on unfinished 
iron and steel, in order to equalize the opportunity oi makers of fin- 
ishea products in foreign markets. To this policy the domestic con- 
sumer is usually ready to lend himself, thus making a powerful com- 
bination of interests to set limitg to the rise of domestic prices of iron 
and steel materials. 

"Of the two policies open to iron and steel makers, the far-sighted 
one of keeping the domestic and foreign markets as near as possible on 
a par in the price of these materials of manufacture seems by far the 
wiser one to follow, both in the interest of a steadier course of prices, 
which means steadier consumption, and on account of the competition 
of manufacturers of finished goods with foreign manufacturers in the 
neutral markets of the world. 

"The other policy of maintaining prices to manufacturers at the 
highest level at home leaves little margin for experiment in seeking 
new markets, and restricts the application of iron and steel to addi- 
tional uses at home. The depressing effects of an agitation for tariif 
revision to remedy this inequality are sure to cause a far greater busi- 
ness loss, not only to the country as a whole, but to the producers of 
iron and steel themselves, than is to be gained by selling at low prices 
abroad, which they cannot help, and at high prices at home, which they 
can help. Nor can the home-market price be sustained beyond certain 
limits by export sales. Certain American manufacturers of steel ma- 
terials tried this policy up to April, 1900. It resulted in a very 
positive shrinkage in domestic consumption at the then high rates. 
Farmers had ceased to purchase barbed wire for wire fences, retail 
hardware dealers had complained for months of diminished business in 
nails and wire. Jobbers had gotten in the way of doing a hand-to- 
mouth business on prices that had advanced from $1.35 to $3.20 in 
the course of a year. Hence the reduction of $1 in April, 1900, became 
a necessity in order to keep the mills in operation. 

"If steel rails, for example, sell at Pittsburg for $35 per ton for 
months in succession for home consumption, while the foreign con- 
sumer is purchasing them for $22 to $24 per ton, the domestic market 
is sure to order no more tham, it is obliged to have for the time being." 

EVIDENCE FROM ABROAD. 

Hon. John Sharp Williams, from whose comprehensive speech 
of May 3, 1906, in Congress on this subject much of this evidence 
is taken, entirely demolishes the arguments and figures of the 
Republicans who had preceded him — notably Representative 
Hepburn of Iowa — quoted from certain testimony given in 1904 
before the Chamberlain Tariff Commission of Great Britain by 
members of English firms as to what prices American goods were 
sold in Great Britain in comparison with prices prevailing in 
Pittsburg at the same time. The report of this Commission, says 
Mr. Williams, fairly bristles with such items as these: 

Firm No. 312: "We have an offer this week of Siemens-Martin billets, 
made at Pittsburg, delivered c. i. f. British port, of 75 shillings per ton. 
This week's quotation for pig iron for steel-making purposes (see Iron 
Age, Jan. 21, 1904) is about $13 per ton at Pittsburg. The best- 
equipped works in Pittsburg sell at present raw material, wages and 
prices, manufactured pig iron into Siemens-Martin open-hearth billets 
at $6.50 per ton — that is, equal to $19.50 per ton at Pittsburg. The 
selling (pool) price at Pittsburg today for open-hearth billets is $24. 

In other words, the Siemens-Martin billets, which were offered to 
firm No. 312 at 75 shillings per ton, were costing American consumers 
that same week $24, or 98.36 shillings per ton — 23.36 shillings more 
to the American than to the foreigner. 



SHIP BUILDING MATERIAL. 57 

Firm No. 898 : ''Pig iron from United States of America is imported 
into this country (England) below cost price here; our consumers are 
buying at 5 shillings per ton less than we can produce it, and the 
Americans are reported to be selling for export to England at a price 
equivalent to 8 shillings per ton lower than the price at which they 
are supplied in their own country." 

EVIDENCE AT HOME. 

Mr, Henry O. Havemeyer, president of the sugar trust, to the 
Industrial Commission, said: 

"The mother of all trusts is the customs-tariff bill. The existing 

bill and the preceding one have been the occasion of the formation 

f all the large trusts, with very few exceptions, inasmuch as they 

provide for an inordinate protection to all the interests of the country, 

ugar refining excepted. 

"In fact, the tariff bill clutches the people by the throat, and then 
the governors and the attorney-generals of the several States take 
ction, not against the cause, but against the machinery which the 
eople employ to rifle the public's pockets. 

Without the tariff I doubt if we should have dared to take the risk 
)f forming the trust. It could have been done ; but I certainly should 
lot have risked all I had, which was then embarked in the sugar 
usiness, in a trust unless the business had been protected as it was 
y the tariff." 

"Steel rails were exported at the time the steel schedule was under 
liscussion. They were being sent to England and Scotland. They can 
)e produced for $15 a ton; they are worth $24 a ton. Now, the reason 
hey are worth $24 a ton is because the people, under the tariff, are 
nulcted for the difference. I am not talking about things that are 
mcient history ; I am talking about things that exist. I am not talk- 
ng as to whether 100 per cent, was necessary or not. I am talk- 
ng about the effect of the tariff today, which is the mother of these 
rusts which are mulcting the people, and there is not a line of it free 
rom this abuse today." 

May 11, 1901, Mr. Schwab, of the Carnegie Steel Company, to 
he Industrial Commission, said: 

Q. Is it a fact generally proved of all exporters in this country 
tiat they do sell at lower prices in foreign markets than they do in 

e home markets? A. That is true, perfectly true. 

Q. Would you say that when business is in a normal condition 

e export prices are regularly somewhat lower than home prices? 
Oh, yes ; always. 

Q. Suppose you take the case of steel rails. Could you give about 

e difference between the export and domestic price? A. I would 
ave to make a guess; I do not know exactly. The export price is 
30ut $23 a ton. 

Q. And the price here ?— A. Was $26 and $28. 

Q. At the same time? — ^A. At the same time. 

Q. Do you think that men of limited capital can start in business 
id become large owners as readily now, under this system, as they 
d formerly? 

Mr. Schwab. I do not quite understand that. 

Q. Has a person or a company with limited capital the same op- 
>rtunity to start in business and become large proprietors or owners 
ider the consolidated system as there was formerly? 

Mr. Schwab. Well, if you put the question that way, I think the 
an with exceptional ability today has a better opportunity of be- 
ming a large owner or a large director in one of these great com- 
mies than ever before. If you say the man with capital at the 
art — small capital at the start— I doubt it. (Vol. 13, Rep. Ind. 

m., p. 459.) 



58 AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 



AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 

ARE SOLD FROM 25 TO 40 PER CENT. CHEAPER ABROAD 
THAN AT HOME. 

Prices on Ageiciiltural Implements; Mr. Seabtjry to the Fray 

Again. 

Editor American Industries: A speech was made at the last con- 
vention of the National Association of Manufacturers at Atlanta by 
the manager of an agricultural implement industry, in answer to a 
statement made by me in an address "On Tariff Kevision and the 
Remedy." In it I asserted that American agricultural implements 
were sold for export below home prices; and I also stated that Cana- 
dian, English and German firms were successful competitors of our 
American imperious manufacturers; moreover, that German manufac- 
turers were sending competitive wares into our home market, men- 
tioning Texas in particular. These statements are true. The speaker 
had the assurance to state that my assertions were untrue, and 
"volunteered the statement that the wares of his establishment were 
not only sold at the same price for export as in the United States, 
but higher prices were obtained. In my general statement I qualified 
my assertion by saying that exporters of American products operate'^ 
under that rule except where the wares represented a monopoly r-'i 
were patented. To this statement I also added in my own behalf that " 
we were compelled to undersell home prices in order to acquire export 
trade, which is also true. 

These facts are generally known, our surplus agricultural imple- 
ments being disposed of at from 25 to 40 per cent, less on export orders 
for competitive wares. If proofs are needed to sustain this assurance 
an application to the undersigned at 59 and 61 Maiden Lane, New 
York City, will satisfy the most incredulous investigator that I spok:e 
truthfully and that evidence will be furnished from the largest manu- 
facturing firms in and out of the agricultural implement syndicates or 
combinations and from export merchants, who ship these goods to 
every part of the world. 

Facts and statistics are unimpeachable; I have no motive in study- 
ing international problems other than to present our strength and 
weaknesses in promoting and preserving our national commercial inter- 
ests in any form. It is seldom that an incident like the above has 
occurred in my experience covering more than thirty years; whenever 
it has, it was inspired either through wilful misrepresentation or lack 
of definite information. George J. Seabury. 

New York, June 23. 

— ^American Industries, July 1, 1905. 



IT HAS BEEN CHARGED SINCE 1890 THAT AGRICULTURAL 

MACHINERY MADE IN THE UNITED STATES IS 

SOLD CHEAPER IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES 

THAN TO OUR OWN PEOPLE. 

In 1890, the Hon. Jeremiah M. Rusk, Secretary of Agriculture, 
under the Harrison administration, in 1890, said: 

"I had an opportunity to take some stock in the combination (Amer- 
ican Harvester Co. ) , and I know what inducements were offered. An 
investigation will show that this same combination is now selling or 
offering to sell, machinery in Russia and Australia and other wheat 
growing countries at a lower figure than they do in this country. This 
won't do, and I need not offer any argument to prove the weight or 
truth of the assertion. The first thing the farmer will do when he is 
acquainted with the facts will be to make a howl against trusts and 
protection that does not protect. Whether justly or not, he will 



AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 



59 



charge it to the Republican party. I am as certain as I can be of 
anything that this Moiver and Reaper Trust will cost the Republican 
party hundreds of thousands of votes at the next Presidential election 
unless it takes a firm stand against it and trusts in general." 

To test the matter the Farmers Call, of Quincy, 111., wrote Mr. 
A. B. Farquhar, the head of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Works, 
one of the leading manufacturers, both of the home trade and 
for export, of agricultural implements and machinery. His 
answer was as follows: 

"July 30, 1890. 

"The 'fact' is that protective laivs are a monstrous sivindle upon the 
agricultural community. As a manufacturer I was inclined to say 
nothing on the subject, for the reason that it was natural to suppose 
if anybody was benefited it was the manufacturing class, to which I 
belong. But, as I have explained, the farmer is being destroyed. We 
are killing the goose for the golden egg. And I honestly believe now 
that it is to be the interest of the manufacturers themselves to elimi- 
nate the protective feature from our tariff laws. 

Manufactures are sold much lower abroad, we could only need 
protection to get better pi'ices from our customers at home. We 
do manufacture and sell in Canada, South America, and Europe 
many agricultural implements and machines, and could Ave have free 
raw material and the commercial advantages which free trade would 
give us America would become the great manufacturing emporium of 
the world, and the farmer would, of course, share the prosperity since 
he would have less to pay for everything and get better prices for all 
he sold. Go on with j'^our good work. When the farmer begins to 
think and rise up against this swindle it is doomed." 

EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. 

(Statistical Abstract— 1905). 



ARTICLES. 



I 1896 



1897 



I 1898 I 1899 



Agi-icultiu-al Implements : 
Mowers and reapers ; and 

_ parts of 

Plows and cultivators ; 

and parts of 

All other, and parts of. . 

Total 



$3,212,423 

746,604 
1.217.748 



$3,127,415 

590,779 
1.522.492 



$5,500,665 

927,250 
1.181.817 



$9,053,830 

1,545,410 
1.832.957 



$5,176,775 $5,240,686 $7,609,732 $12,432,197 



1900 



1901 



1902 



1903 



1904 



1905 



$11,243,763 

2.178,098 

2,677,288 



$9,943,680 

1,888,373 
4,481.381 



$8,818,370 

2,791,092 

4,677.278 



$10,326,641 

3,169,961 

7.510.020 



$11,568,062 

3,537,810 
7,643.763 



$10,559,891 

2,892,060 
7,269,790 



$16,099,149 1 $16.313.434 1 $16,286.740 1 $21.006.622 1 $22,749,635 1 $20,721,741 



"As soon as an industry has attained the position where it can more 
than supply our home m^arket and has to send its goods abroad, where 
they compete witn those of foreign manufacturers, it is evident that 
they are either giving the foreigners the benefit of lower rates than 
they do our own people, or that they are able to get along at home 
without any protection from foreign manufacturers. It is not fair 
that our oion people should be made to pay more than foreigners for 
the products of our oxon land." — Engineering and Mining Journal. 
March 15, 1890. 



AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 



AMERICAN TOOLS CHEAPER IN GERMANY. 

On the day when the American chief was embarking for New 
York in order to purchase his supplies of American tools, the 
Panama doctor came to him and said: 

"I can buy those identical American tools here cheaper than you 
can buy them in New York! A German house orders them for me. 
They go from New York to Berlin, and from Berlin a second time 
across the Atlantic, and, inspite of all that travel, I get them here 
cheaper than you can in New York! (Poultney Bigelow.) 

Free Trade Broadside, April, 1906. 

THE V/ATCH TRUST SELLS CHEAPER ABROAD THAN AT 

HOME. 

It is seldom you can catch a trust red handed in carrying off 
the swag, yet that has been accomplished in the watch trust case, 
which is not only proved to be selling cheaper abroad than here, 
but also of restricting trade and dictating the retail prices at 
which watches shall be sold. 

In a speech in the House of Representatives April 5 (see Cong. 
Record, April 5, 1906), Hon. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, fully 
exposed the watch trust and its method of plundering the people 
of the United States through the protection granted the trust in 
the Dingley tariff law. 

In opening his speech Mr. Rainey first had read an advertise- 
ment of Charles A. Keene, a watch and diamond merchant of 180 
Broadway, New York city, which is as follows: 

"[The New York Press, Friday Morning, February 2, 1906.] 
"FOR SALE— DIAMONDS, WATCHES, ETC. 

"Warning! Do not buy Waltham or Elgin watches from dealers 
allied with the trust! 

"When I started this campaign against the iniquitous methods prac- 
ticed by the watch trust against both consumer and dealer I prophesied 
that the exposure of the combine's unfair methods would inevitably 
compel the watch trust to forego extorting extravagant profits from 
American watch buyers and compel them to get down to a square basis 
or to quit the foreign field. That alternative is now being considered 
by the watch trust. 

"The members of the watch trust are now studiously analyzing the 
problem created by the stupendous competition I have initiated — even 
the dealers are protesting against and rejecting the ironclad agree- 
ments heretofore forced upon them by the trust. 

"The cost of your watch may be a comparatively trivial affair, but 
the price you pay involves a principle, and a vital one. 

"To pay $75 for a Waltham, 'Riverside Maximus' (the price which 
eight out of ten dealers will ask you) may not be a willful extrava- 
gance from the standpoint of intrinsic value, but to pay $32.70 more 
than that particular watch sells for in England, Egypt or Australia 
simply because it is a home-made article and you live in the United 
States is hardly sufficient justification for paying tribute and dividends 
to tlie trust. The average man wants fair play in watch buying as in 
other things. 

"There are no better watches made in the world than those turned 
out of our American factories. That fact is made doubly plain by the 
high character of the goods sent abroad by the watch trust to compete 
with the world-renowned watches of such makers as Sir John Bennett, 
Jules Jurgensen, Patek Phillipe, Audemar, Constantin & Vacheron, etc. 



AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 61 

"It may seem paradoxical or a 'bull' to say that in order to get the 
best American-made watches at the lowest prices you must buy them 
abroad, but such is the fact, thanks to a benevolent 'protective' tariff, 
which enables the Avatch trust to hold up the American public and de- 
mand tribute for dividends from Americans. 

"Here is an illustration of how the watch trust mulcts (or milks) 
the American watch buyer 

"Walk into any jewelry store in the United States and ask to be 
shown the best Waltham watch made. They will show you the 
'Riverside Maximus,' at $75. 

"Under no circumstances are they allowed to sell this watch for 
less than $60, as they are bound by the 'ironclad' agreement with the 
trust to maintain that as the minimum price. I buy this same 
'Riverside Maximus' in England, defray all shipping expenses, bring 
it back to this country duty free, and offer it to the American public 
at $42.30, and make a reasonable trade profit on the transaction. 

"The same relative price difference applies to all other grades of 
Waltham and Elgin watches. 

"It is even possible to bring Waltham movements back to this coun- 
try from England and retail them for $2.75 at a profit. 

"All my Avatches are guaranteed brand new, just as they come from 
the Waltham and Elgin factories. The prices are all under the mar- 
ket; for instance, the Riverside, seventeen jewels, price $16.39. No 
jeweler is allowed to sell this for less than $25, under penalty of being 
blacklisted by the trust cutting off his supply. Ask some jeweler and 
find out. All my prices represent about the sarne percentage of saving. 
The prices quoted below are for movements alone. On request I will 
submit prices on any sort of case made. I do not sell movements 
without cases or cases without movements. They are priced sepa- 
rately simply for tlie convenience of customers: 

Waltham, Maximus, 23 jewels $42.30 

Waltham, 15 jewels. No. 820 3.98 

Waltham, 17 jewels. No. 85 4.78 

Waltham, Crescent St., 19 jewels 16.92 

Waltham, Crescent St., 21 jewels 18.98 

Waltham, Riverside, 17 jewels 16.39 

Waltham, Vanguard, 23 jewels 25.38 

P. S. Bartlett, 17 jewels 7.98 

Elgin, B. W. Raymond, 19 jewels 16.92 

Appleton, Tracy & Co., 17 jewels 11.98 

Laay Waltham, size, 16 jewels 9.98 

Riverside, 12 size, 17 jewels 16.39 

Waltham, Maximus, 21 jewels 39.9? 

Elgin, Veritas, 23 jewels 25.38 

"CHARLES A. KEENE, 
"180 Broadway, New York, Watches, Diamonds, Jewelry." 

Mr. Rainey then said: 



"What is known as the 'big four' in the watch trust are the follow- 
ing: The American Waltham Watch Company, of Waltham, Mass.; 
the Crescent Watch Case Company, of Philadelphia; the Elgin Na- 
tional Watch Company, of Elgin, 111., and the Keystone Watch Case 
Company, of Newark, N. J. The Waltham company make movements 
only, and they are put on the market and sold in Crescent cases. The 
Elgin National Watch Company sells their watches to the Keystone 
Watch Case Company for export, and they are exported by the Key- 
stone Watch Case Company. The New York Standard Watch Com- 
pany, of Jersey City; the Philadelphia Watch Case Company, of 
Riverside, N. J., and the E. Howard Watch Company, of Boston, are 
controlled by the same capital that controls the Keystone company, 
and in order to show how closely all these watch companies are related 
I want simply to call attention to the fact that although the capital 



62 AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 

of the Keystone company controls the Howard Watch Company, the 
Howard watches are made by the Waltham factory in New York. All 
these companies own each other's stock. 

"Now, I want to answer the questions of the gentleman from Iowa. 
They are all pertinent and in fairness they ought to be answered, 
and inasmuch as he has asked them, coming as they do from a leading 
exponent of the *stand-pat' Republican policy of this country, they 
ought to be answered fully, and if I do not entirely satisfy the gentle- 
man from Iowa or any other gentleman on the other side of the 
House, I trust that you will keep on interrupting and asking questions 
until I have satisfied every one of you. I have been studying the 
watch business for some time now, and I feel that I know something 
about it and I am willing to give to you, who control the situation 
here and who alone can say whether or not there shall be a revision of 
the tariff schedules, the benefit of my labors." [Applause on the 
Democratic side.] 

"Watch movements, whether imported in cases or not, if having not 
more than seven jewels, 35 cents each; if having more than seven 
jewels and not more than eleven jewels, 50 cents each; if having 
more than eleven jewels and not more than fifteen jewels, 75 cents 
each; if having more than fifteen jewels and not more than seventeen 
jewels, $1.25 each; if having more than seventeen jewels, $3 each, and 
in addition thereto, on all the foregoing, 25 per centum ad valorem; 
watch cases and parts of watches, including watch dials, chronometers, 
parts of watches, etc., 40 per centum ad valorem. An jewels for use 
in the manufacture of watches or clocks, 10 per centum ad valorem. 

"Now, in order to further answer the gentleman from Iowa upon a 
matter about which I am surprised he is not fully informed, I want 
to say that American-made goods sent abroad can be brought back 
without paying any duty if they come back in the same condition that 
they were in when they went abroad. You must satisfy the tariff 
officers, not that they are in the same condition perhaps, but that they 
have not been im.proved or advanced in value while abroad." 



HOW THE WATCH TRUST DOES BUSINESS. 

"I have here a contract which the American Waltham Watch Com- 
pany exacts from every recailer in this country who buys the better 
grades of watches, and in watch parlance the better grades of watches 
are called 'railroad movements.' No dealer who buys a railroad move- 
ment in the United States is permitted to sell that movement for less 
than the minimum price fixed in that contract. Under this contract 
the Waltham Company exercises the right to control absolutely the 
men who shall be jobbers of watches in the United States. In order 
to show you how it is possible for this business to be built up back of 
this tariff — a nefarious, outrageous business like this — I am going to 
put the contract of the Waltham Company in the Record. It has 
never been published ; and I am not permitted to give the name of the 
retail dealer who furnished me with this copy. But I propose that the 
country now shall know, and I ask the Clerk to read the contract at 
the bottom of this bill, beginning with the words, "Bill to retailers." 

The clerk read as follows : 

BILL TO RETAILERS— CONDITIONS OF SALE. 

"Each Waltham railroad movement specified in this bill is sold sub- 
ject to all the conditions hereinafter and in the Waltham contract no- 
tice accompanying such movement set forth, which conditions, the 
purchaser named herein, by the acceptance of such movement, agrees 
with the undersigned company to keep and perform, viz. (1) Retail 
watch dealers must not dispose of said movements except by sale; 
(2) must sell said movements only to customers purchasing the same 
for their own or others' use and not for resale ; ( 3 ) and must not ad- 
vertise or sell any of said movements or any other Waltham railroad 
movements at less than the following net prices, respectively: 






AMERICAN MANUFACTURES. 63 

'Vanguard, twenty-three jewels, $35; Vanguard, twenty-one jewels, 
$30; Vangviard, nineteen jewels, $28; Crescent St., twenty-one jewels, 
$26; Crescent St., nineteen jewels, $24; Appleton, Tracy & Co. Pre- 
mier, $21; Riverside Maximus Lever Setting, $60; Riverside Lever 
Setting, $25. 

" ( 4 ) All watch dealers handling these or any other Waltham rail- 
road movements are to be considered retail dealers, except those named 
as jobbers in the latest list of jobbers issued by said company. (5) 
A breach of any of these conditions as to any Waltham railroad move- 
ment shall revest in said company the title of such movement and of 
all other Waltham railroad movements in the possession of the vio- 
lator, and upon tendering the price paid by the holder of such move- 
ments the said company shall be entitled to retake possession of the 
same. 

"A duplicate of this bill has been sent to the undersigned, by whom 
these conditions will be enforced. 

"AMERICAN WALTHAM WATCH COMPANY, 

"Waltham, Mass. 

"Now, I want to put in the Record, and I want to have it read here, 
the contract the Elgin Company exacts from other companies, and 
this will be the first time this contract has ever been printed." 

The Clerk read as follows: 

"RETAIL BILL. 

"The Elgin movements specified herein are sold subject to the fol- 
lowing license conditions (see license accompanying each movement) : 
( 1 ) The retail purchaser may advertise and sell the same only to 
buyers for use, and at not less than the following prices: No. 214 
Veritas, $35; 239 and 274 Veritas, $30; 240 Raymond, $24; Father 
Time, hunting or open face, $26; 17-jewel B. W. Raymond, hunting 
or open face, $21; 270, $28; 280, $23. (2) Acceptance of the move- 
ments is assent to these conditions. (3) Any violation of the license 
conditions revokes and terminates all right and license as to move- 
ments and all other Elgin movements in the violator's possession." 

Mr. Rainey continued by describing each class of watch sold in 
the same manner. 

On February 20, 1906, Mr. Williams, of Mississippi, introduced 
the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on Ways 
and Means and ordered to be printed: 

"A bill to reduce the duties on watches imported into the United 
States from foreign countries. 

"Be it enacted, etc.. That from and after the passage of this act the 
duty levied, collected, and paid upon watches imported into the United 
States from foreign countries shall be 15 per cent, ad valorem. 

"Sec. 2. That all provisions of the law in conflict with the pro- 
visions of this act are hereby repealed." 

But the Republicans refused to consider it. 
Mr. Rainey then produced the receipts of the American Express 
Company for $130,000. 

"I hold in my hand over $130,000 of American Express Company's 
recei2>ts showing that within the fifteen months prior to the time he 
started this particular biisiness, he cabled abroad in American money 
over $130,000 through the American Express Company for the pur- 
pose of purchasing abroad American-made watches." 

Also a list of watch dealers in various parts of the world and 
he charged that to each one of these watch dealers the American 
Watch Trust — the Elgin Company and the Waltham Company 



64 WAGES' AND INCOMES. 



and the Keystone Company and the rest of them — sell watches 
for a mere fraction of the price they sell to the American retailer, 
and challenged them to show by their books that they do not do so. 
The following is the list referred to: 

"Mr. Evan Roberts, 30 St. Georges square, Regents Park, London; 
Mr. J. Blanckensee & Co., 48 Frederick street, Birmingham, England; 
Mr. Marcel Bourdais, 62 Ruede, Tavernue, Paris; Ballantyne & Son, 
52 Virginia street, Glasgow, Scotland ; MM. Les Fils de Braunschweig, 
Chaux de Fonde, Switzerland; E. Collins & Co., 34 Pritchard, 
Johannesburg, Africa; George & Co., Scotland road, Liverpool, Eng- 
land; Hopkins & Hopkins, No. 1 Lov\^er Sackville, Dublin, Ireland; 
Mr. Hurtis Sendre, 6 Old China Bazaar street, Calcutta, India; Mr. 
Otto Heerman, 34 Ferdinand Strasse, Hamburg, Germ^any." 



WAGES AND INCOMES. 

HOW THE TARIFF HAS AFFECTED THEM. 

The question of the increase or decrease of wages and incomes 
is comparatively an uncertain quantity as to the employees of the 
whole country. The Census Bureau says no reliable comparison 
can be made between the figures for 1890 and 1900. The Labor 
Bureau, in the Bulletin for July, 1905, published the "Relative 
weekly earnings per employee and for all employees 1890 to 
1904 (see page 15), which indicates an average increase in 
weekly earnings of 12.3 per cent, from 1897 to 1904, the relative 
numbers being given in 1897 as 99.2 and in 1904 112.2." 

SPEAKER CANNON'S STATISTICS. 

Speaker Cannon, in his "keynote" speech delivered August 16 
at Danville, Illinois, gave the voters some large statistics to 
ponder over, but it is safe to assume that Mr. Cannon would not 
have used these figures if he had known their full significance. 
Pie said: "The average number of wage-earners in 1900, as 
given by the Census, was 4,251,535, in 1905 the number was 5,- 
492,178, not including those in hand trades." "The total wages 
paid," said Mr. Cannon, "in 1890 amounted to $1,891,209,696, and 
in 1905 to $2,661,409,858." So he acknowledges that during these 
fifteen years average yearly wages increased slightly less than 
9.4 per cent. 

During the same period, that is from 1890 to 1905, the value of 
manufactured products, according to Census figures, increased 
58.7 per cent. Does Mr. Cannon and other stand-pat Congressmen 
call that a fair deal? An increase of 58.7 per cent, for the Trusts 
and only an increase of 9.4 per cent, for the wage-earners. That 
certainly proves trust prosperity, but where does the prosperity 
for the wage-earner come in when his cost of living has increased 
47 per cent. 

Speaker Cannon, in his fight with labor, should avoid statistics, 
for they are a two-edged sword in the hands of anyone that does 
not understand their significance, as Mr. Cannon evidently does 
not. 



WAaES^ AND INCOMES. 65 



As most of these statistics are totally unreliable, those for the 
Census of 1890, notoriously so, and those furnished from the 
Bureau of Labor being juggled to make a partisan showing, Mr. 
Cannon and other Republican orators should confine themselves 
to glittering generalities and attempt to prove nothing. 

How much wages have increased during the past nine years 
can be best answered by each individual for himself. He knows 
what he has been receiving and what he is now getting and 
whether his wages have kept pace with his increased expenses. 

WAGES OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES. 

The Interstate Commerce Commission receives a report each 
year from each railroad corporation of its income and expenses. 
One of the items of this report is the number of employees and 
the wages paid them. As the wages of railroad men must about 
keep pace with those in other industries, these ofiicial govern- 
ment statistics are a fair indication of wages paid in other in- 
dustries for the year given. In the Statistics of Railways in the 
United States for 1904, the last published by the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, on page 43, will be found the average daily 
wages paid to each class of railroad employee as follows: 

Class. 

1904 

General officers 11.61 

Ottter officers 6.07 

General office clerks 2.22 

Station agents 1.93 

Other station men 1.69 

Enginemen 4.10 

Firemen 2.35 

Conductors 3.50 

Other trainmen 2.27 

Machinists 2.61 

Carpenters 2.26 

Other shopmen 1.91 

Section foremen 1.78 

Other trackmen 1.33 

Switch tenders, crossing 

tenders and watchmen 1.77 1.76 1.77 1.74 1.80 1.77 1.74 1.72 
Telegraph operators 

and dispatchers 2.15 2.08 2.01 1.98 1.96 1.93 1.92 1.90 

Employees — account floatiig 

equipment 2.17 2.11 2.00 1.97 1.92 1.89 1.89 1.86 

All other employees 

and laborers 1.82 1.77 1.71 1.69 1.71 1.68 1.67 1.64 

These wages show an average increase of 11 per cent. Since 
1904 there has been a further increase, which, if in the same pro- 
portion, would make the increase in 1906 about 14 per cent. So 
the railroad men are not participating in the prosperity of the 
railroad managers and stockholders. What they bought for $1 
of wages in 1897 now costs them $1.47, and they have only $1.14 
to pay it with. The tariff fostered trusts and inflation have raised 
prices 47 per cent., but the average wages have only increased 14 
per cent. To come out even the man who was receiving $2 a 
day in 1897 should now be getting $2.94. It is fair to assume that 
all labor is suffering from similar conditions, except perhaps a 
few well-organized trades, who have been able to force their 
wages somewhat beyond the average increase, but only after 
great strikes and costly struggles. 



u 


nited 


States 










1903 


1902 


1901 


1900 


1899 


1898 


1897 


11.27 


11.17 


10.97 


10.45 


10.03 


9.73 


9.54 


5.76 


5.60 


5.56 


5.22 


5.18 


5.21 


5.12 


2.21 


2.18 


2.19 


2.19 


2.20 


2.25 


2.18 


1.87 


1.80 


1.77 


1.75 


1.74 


1.73 


1.73 


1.64 


1.61 


1.59 


1.60 


1.60 


1.61 


1.62 


4.01 


3.84 


3.78 


3.75 


3.72 


3.72 


3.65 


2.28 


2.20 


2.16 


2.14 


2.10 


2.09 


2.05 


3.38 


3.21 


3.17 


3.17 


3.13 


3.13 


3.07 


2.17 


2.04 


2.00 


1.96 


1.94 


1.95 


1.90 


2.50 


2.36 


2.32 


2.30 


2.29 


2.28 


2.23 


2.19 


2.08 


2.06 


2.04 


2.03 


2.02 


2.01 


1.86 


1.78 


1.75 


1.73 


1.72 


1.70 


1.71 


1.78 


1.72 


1.71 


1.68 


1.68 


1.69 


1.70 


1.31 


1.25 


1.23 


1.22 


1.18 


1.16 


1.16 



'66 COBT OF LIVING mGHEU. 

No wonder Organized Labor is opposing the Republican party, 
not only on the question of labor legislation, but on the far 
greater issue of legislating for monopolists and giving them the 
opportunity to plunder the great mass of the people. 

HOW THE TARIFF PLUNDERS THOSE WITH LIMITED 
INCOMES. 

Those whose incomes are stationary and who get no increase 
to correspond with the increase, in the cost of living are in worse 
plight than other people. The aged man or widow with a small 
but fixed income finds nearly one-half of its purchasing power 
cut off and themselves unable from age or infirmity from working 
to increase their incomes. Nothing remains for such unfor- 
tunates but the pinching economy that comes hard, when com- 
fort should be the rule. The grasping Trusts and Corporations 
are, through the monopoly, created by protectionism sucking the 
life blood of those with limited incomes to the tune of 47 per 
cent. That is Republican usury made legal by the statute known 
as the Dingley tariff law. 



COST OF LIVING HIGHER, 

AMERICANS PAY HIGH TAXES FOR BENEFIT OF 
FOREIGNERS. 

"FIGURES WON'T LIE!" 

"The Bureau of Labor at Washington issues a bulletin to explain 
that the cost of living is the highest in sixteen years. Any housewife 
could have told them that after doing her daily shopping." — New 
York World. 

That statement of fact is a reminder, by way of contrast, of one of 
the funny incidents of the Presidential campaign of 1904. Everybody 
will remember — for who could possibly forget? — the promulgation by 
that bureau, just as the dullness that characterized the first two 
months of that campaign was beginning to be relieved by a slight 
semblance of interest and excitement, of a bulletin showing on its 
face that the cost of living had been for a considerable time tending 
downward. As that statement was flatly contradicted by the experi- 
ence of every family in the United States, and, therefore, all the 
people knew that it was the reverse of true, it naturally caused some 
indignation. But that feeling gave way to innocent merriment as 
soon as the country had time to take in and assimilate its grotesque 
absurdity. 

Truth has nothing to fear from fiction, even though it comes in the 
shape of official statistics. For, in spite of the old saw, "figures won't 
lie," it has come to be generally understood that "in the hands of one 
entirely great" figures may be induced to do the most stupendous 
lying. In 1906 it is as well known that Americans are paying heavy 
taxes not for protection of Americans, hut for the benefit of foreign 
consumers of American pi-oducts, as it was in 1904 that the cost of 
living had long been soaring. And it is this universal knowledge that 
causes recent lame and impotent attempts to deny that our manufac- 
turers show special and great favor to foreign customers to be dis- 
missed with mingled contempt and amusement." — Washington Post, 
May 4, 1906. 



PRICE8 AND WAGES. 67 



PRICES AND WAGES. 

THE INCREASED COST OF LIVING. 

As the present tariff law has greatly advanced the cost of liv- 
ing, it is important to know just how much is to be charged to 
that Republican legislation and to discover the benefit, if any, to 
offset that drain on the American pocketbook and if wages have 
kept pace with the increased expenditures. 

The acknowledged reliable figures of the trend of prices are 
Dun's Index numbers, issued every month by the R. G. Dun & 
Company Mercantile Agency in Dun's Review. These figures 
are scientifically arrived at and the following explanation of the 
method of preparation is taken from the Government report of 
the Monthly Summary of Commerce and Labor for April, 1904, 
under the title, "Prices Proportioned to Consumption": 

"In the following table the course of prices and commodities is 
shown, with due allowance for the relative importance of each. Quo- 
tations of all the necessaries of life are taken, including whiskey 
and tobacco, and in each case the price is multiplied by the annual 
per capita consumption, which precludes, and one commodity having 
more tlian its proper weight in the aggregate. 

"For example, the price of a bushel of wheat is multiplied by 5.55, 
representing the annual per capita consumption of 4 2-3 bushels of 
food and the remainder as allowance for seed. The price per pound 
for cofl'ee is taken nine times, of cheese 2.3, of chemicals only frac- 
tions of an ounce in some cases. Thus, wide fluctuations in the 
price of an article little used do not materially affect the index, but 
changes in the great staples have a large influence in advancing or 
depressing the total. For convenience of comparison and economy 
of space the prices are grouped in seven classes: Breadstuffs in- 
clude many quotations of wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley, beans and 
peas; meats include live hogs, beef, sheep, and many provisions, lard, 
tallow, etc.; dairy and garden products embrace eggs, vegetables, 
fruits, milk, butter, cheese, etc.; clothing covers the raw material 
of each industry, and many quotations of woolen, cotton, silk and 
rubber goods, as well as hides, leather, boots and shoes; metals in- 
clude various quotations of pig iron and partially manufactured 
and finished products, as well as the minor metals, tin, lead, copper, 
etc., and coal and petroleum; miscellaneous include many grades of 
hard and soft lumber, lath, brick, lime, glass, turpentine, hemp, 
linseed oil, paints, fertilizers and drugs. The third decimal is given 
for accuracy of comparison; thus, $101,587 representing $101.58 and 
seven-tenths of a cent. This figure does not purport to show the 
exact average amount cost of living on January 1, 1902, because 
wholesale prices are taken and all luxuries omitted. Its economic 
value is in showing the percentage of advance or decline from month 
to month." 

To show how careful Dun's Review is to quote accurately and 
to weight properly, note the following further explanation from 
Dun's Review of September 7, 1901: 

"In many cases a large number of quotations are averaged in order 
to secure a representative price for the commodity, thus avoiding the 
special effect on one particular grade of exceptional conditions. Botli 
raw materials and manufactured products are included, preventing 
the excessive influence of speculative operations in the former, since 
markets for finished products are more stable. In these cases the 
per capita consumption is so proportioned as to avoid duplication," 



PRICES AND WAGES. 



The explanation of the Dun price tables not only indicates 
what is a strictly scientific system, it also condemns the Bureau 
of Labor methods as unscientific and unreliable. The Dun price 
tables are prepared by the leading commercial authority of this 
country. They are not made in the interest of any political party 
or to bolster up any tariff theory. The accuracy of these price 
tables as indicating the relative changes in the cost of living has 
never been questioned, even by the Bureau of Labor. Why the 
Labor Bureau should adopt another and totally unscientifiie sys- 
tem is clear to those familiar with the exigencies of Republican 
politics. 

Following is a table showing the relative cost of living at dif- 
ferent dates: 

DUN'S INDEX NUMBERS. 

1897 1900 1902 1904 1906 

July 1 July 1 July 1 July 1 July 1 

Breadstuff 10.589 14.898 20.534 18.244 17.923 

Meats 7.529 8.906 11.628 9.033 9.677 

Dairy and Garden 8.714 10.901 12.557 10.648 12.590 

Other food 7:887 9.482 8.748 10.406 9.645 

Clothing . . ., 13.808 16.324 15.533 16.514 19.177 

Metals 11.642 14.834 16.084 15.428 16.649 

Miscellaneous 12.288 16.070 16.826 16.919 19.555 

Total 72.455 91.415 101.910 97.192 105.216 

The year 1897 is taken as the initial point because the present 
tariff law was enacted and became in force on July 24 of that 
year, and the odd years are omitted to allow space for the table 
on the page. The general trend, however, has been steadily up- 
ward, except in the semi-panic of 1903, when the numbers fell 
away to 99.456, and continued to decline during 1904. The figures 
of the table therefore indicate that the cost of living has in- 
creased 47 per cent, since 1897, the year the present tariff law was 
enacted. Apparently, it is mounting higher and higher and has 
made new records each year, except in 1903-4, since the trust era 
was brought to its climax by the passage of the present tariff 
law. 

The tables published by the United States Bureau of Labor 
are not prepared on the same scientific basis as are Dun's figures, 
for the proportionate amount of each class of produce and article 
consumed is not allowed for, so that the article, such as nutmegs, 
bears the same relative proportion as fiour. Yet, misleading as 
are the tables of the United States Bureau of Labor, even these 
show that the average wholesale prices for the year 1905 were 
29.02 per cent, higher than they were for the year 1897. (See 
Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, March, 1906). 

ENGLISH PRICES. 

It is interesting to note the trend of prices in England, where 
there are no protected trusts, that country being on a tariff for 
revenue basis. For years the London Economist has published 
figures prepared on a somewhat similar basis as Dun's although 
on a less number of articles and not weighted so scientifically 
and the figures are here given for the same years as in the table 
of Puij's Index numbers. 



PRICES AND WAGES. 69 

LONDON ECONOMIST INDEX NUMBERS. 

Average price level of commodities in England on- the SOth 
day of June, 1897 to 1906, showing the gradual rise in prices in 
the free trade market, due to increased supply of gold. The fig- 
ures are taken from the Index Numbers of the London Economist, 
only the totals being given: 

June 30, 1897 1885 

June 30, 1898 1915 

June 30, 1899 2028 

June 30, 1900 2211 

June 30, 1901 2007 

June 30, 1902 2003 

June 30, 1903 2127 

June 30, 1904 2130 

June 30, 1905 2163 

June 30, 1906 2362 

The table shows that prices in England, where there are no 
protected trusts, have advanced 25% per cent, since 1897, and 
therefore there must be some underlying cause for this increase 
that is world wide. This 25% per cent, increase, it would seem, 
has been caused by the enormous output of gold and consequent 
inflation of the circulating medium during the past few years 
which has decreased the purchasing power of gold, as measured 
in labor and commodities. Therefore, there has been a general 
upward trend of prices to meet this decrease in the value of gold 
on an average of 25% per cent. 

SAUERBECK'S PRICES INDEX. 

As further evidence of the general trend of prices and proof 
of the Democratic contention in 1896 of the quantitative theory 
of money that inflation of the circulating medium advances 
prices and a reduction in the circulating medium leads to lower 
I rice levels is shown in the tables below. It is interesting to 
note that even despised silver feels the force of gold inflation 
and has advanced in Value, as shown by the table below, from 
the relative value of 35.6 to 49.4, an advance of over 38 per cent. 
Since these figures were published the Government of the United 
States has purchased silver at 66 cents an ounce, equal to nearly 
33 pence per ounce, which will advance the index figure to 54.1. 

"A. Sauerbeck, London, issues the following index numbers of 
the prices of 45 commodities, under date of August 3, the average 
of the eleven years 1867-1877 being 100: 

Monthly 
Average. Numbers. 

1878-1887 79 Dec, 1889 73.7 

1886-1895 68 Feb., 1895 60.0 

1890-1899 66 July, 1896 59.2 

1896-1905 '. . 68 July, 1900 76.2 

1894 76 Dec, 1901 68.4 

1896 61 July, 1905 72.5 

1900 75 Dec, 1905 74.9 

1901 70 Feb., 1906 75.0 

1902 69 Mar., 1906 75.7 

1903 69 April, 1906 76.5 

1904 70 May, 1906 77.0 

1905 72 June, 1906 76.9 

July, 1906 , 7Q.4 



iTO PRICES AND WAGES. 



"The index number sliows a further moderate reduction. Among 
articles of food, flour, barley, maize and tea ruled slightly lower^ 
while sugar and coffee Avere somewhat dearer. For animal food 
products there was scarcely any change. In the case of materials 
iron and copper were a little firmer, but tin declined from £176% to 
£170% per ton. Cotton and jute were easier, and foreign wool fell 
5-10 per cent. No alteration occurred for sundry materials in the 
aggregate. 

"Taking articles of food and materials separately the index num- 
bers compare thus (1867-1877 equal 100) : 

Average 1895 ,1896 

1878-87. 1886-95. 1896-05. Feb. July 

Food 84 71 67 63.8 60.0 

Materials 76 66 69 57.0 58.6 

1900 1900 1905 1906 

Feb. July Dec. June July 

Food 65.8 71.2 68.7 69.1 68.7 

Materials 81.9 79.8 79.4 82.7 82.0 

"Silver — The prices and index numbers compare thus (60.84d per 
oz. being the parity of one gold to 15^/^ silver, equal 100) : 

Price. Index 
No. 

Average, 1886-1895 40 %d 66.2 

Average, 1896-1905 ' 27ysd 44.6 

Average, 1896 30 %d 50.5 

End December, 1900 -. 29 9-16d 48.6 

Lowest November, 1902 21 ll-16d 35.6 

End December, 1904 28 %d 46,6 

End March. 1905 25 13-16d 42.4 

End December, 1905 30d 49.3 

End June, 1906 . 30 3-16d 49.6 

End July, 1906 30 l-16d 49.4 

HOW THE TRUSTS HAVE INCREASED PRICES. 

The above index numbers of Sauerbeck's show an average in- 
crease in prices in England of 27 per cent, since 1896, which is 
1% per cent, higher than shown by the London Economist fig- 
ures, probably caused by the larger number of articles used in the 
Sauerbeck grouping than by the Economist. But taking the 
Sauerbeck numbers as approximately correct they show there has 
been this world-wide increase in values of 27 per cent, as against 
an increase in the United States of 47 per cent. The combined 
opinion of nearly all experts charges the' increase in world-wide 
piices to the diminished purchasing power of gold since it has 
become more plentiful, but that only applies to the 27 per cent, 
world-wide increase in prices. To what must be charged the 20 
per cent, extra increase in this country? The reason is plain 
and incontrovertible, that the tariff-fostered trusts have, by rea- 
son of the protection granted them by the Dingley act, been able 
to force up prices beyond the world's. high level. 

THE FARMERS AND TRUST PLUNDERING. 

It is estimated by statistical experts that the special privileges 
granted to the Trusts and Combines by the Republican party 
through the tariff and other legislation takes from the people, 
without giving anything in return, about two billion dollars' 
worth of products annually — $125 per family each year. This 
estimate was published in the Pennsylvania Grange News Sep- 
tember, 1904, the authorized organ of the organized farmers of 



PRICES AND WAGES. 11 



that state. These figures are arrived at by adding together the 
monopoly extortions from farmers, business men and wage-earn- 
ers they probably exceed two billion dollars per annum. This is 
based upon four estimates. 

(1) In the last annual report of the Master of the National 
Grange, Mr. Jones, of Indiana, a Republican, says: "More than 
$150,U00,000 has been lost to the live stock industry in the past 
year by the manipulations of the meat trust. If the entire prod- 
uct of the farm— wheat, corn, hay, cotton, live stock, dairy and 
fruit — is taken into account, farmers have lost more than $700,- 
000,000 in the past year through manipulations of combines and 
trusts. * * * Farmers have also suffered another great loss 
in the purchase of supplies needed in their business." 

(2) The yearly earnings in all the gainful occupations are 
about twenty billion dollars. That one-tenth of this goes to 
monopolists from excessive charges, is a conservative estimate. 
For example, the dividends of the Standard Oil Company for 1901 
were 48 per cent, of its capitalization. And 47 other trusts aver- 
aged 7.44 per cent, on their capitalization of that year. This 
capitalization averaged about three times the amount of capital 
invested, making a 22 per cent, dividend on capital invested. 
In railways the profits for 1901 were as high as 16 per cent, on 
the par value of some of the stocks, which doubtless were half 
w^atered, thus making a rate as high as 32 per cent, of the capital 
invested in some roads. 

(3) The capitalization of certain specified monopolies of the 
country is shown in "The Truth About Trusts" to be twenty 
billions of dollars, while all the other capital in the country is 
only eighty billions of dollars. In other words, the capitalization 
of the principal monopolies is one-fifth the total capitalization of 
the country, and much of the monopoly capitalization, such as 
Standard Oil stock and street railway stocks, is earning so much 
that it sells at from two to eight times its face value. 

(4) The tax levied last year by means of the monopoly prices 
of the American Steel Trust has been carefully estimated by Mr. 
Byron W. Holt, an eminent statistician. He places it at $160,- 
000,000. This of itself is ten dollars per family for the year. 

REPUBLICAN OPINIONS OF THE DINGLEY TARIFF LAW. 

From Speech of Governor Cummins of Iowa. 

"All the robberies and thefts committed by all the insurance ofl&cers 
since life insurance was first originated do not amount to as much 
extortion as the Dingley bill for one year." 

Authorized Interview at Washington, D. C, of Alvin H. Sanders, 
President of the American Reciprocal Tariff League. 

"I have not abandoned hope that this Congress will make some 
move in the interest of fairer trade relations with our foreign cus- 
tomers. It is inconceivable to me that the leaders of the Republican 
party should commit the political blunder of going before the people 
this "^f all with stand-patism as one of the main issues. The corn-belt 
States will sooner or later send men to Washington who will represent 
their interests in an aggressive way on this proposition. ^ They want 
honest protection to interests that need it, but they insist upon an 



72 PRICES AND WAGES. 

energetic effort being made to open the markets of Continental Europe 
to our corn, wheat, flour, beef, pork, cattle, hogs, etc. They believe 
they are being sacrificed at the behest of certain manufacturing inter- 
ests that do not need the excessive tariffs provided by the Dingley 
law of 1897. 

"If we could 'tote fair' with Continental Europe we could sell at 
least $100,000,000 worth more of American agricultural products than 
we are now supplying. Surely this is a matter entitled to the serious 
consideration of the National Legislature. We have been selling to 
Germany, even under the restrictions imposed upon us in recent years, 
more than $50,000,000 worth of farm products other than cotton and 
tobacco. That this could be run up to $100,000,000 under fair recip- 
rocal arrangements is self-evident. The idea, therefore, that we can 
view with equanimity the closing of that outlet for our foreign sur- 
plus, and that we can afford to disregard the European tariff combine 
against us, is a proposition that cannot be successfully defended in 
the Middle States. 

"That representatives of the great farming States should lend them- 
selves to the perpetuation of a policy that is robbing our producers of 
important vents for the ever-growing surplus of our farms appears to 
me a monstrous proposition." 

Interview in New York Sun, November 14, 1905, of Representative 
Babcock, of Wisconsin. 

"What would revision by the coming Congress, through the com- 
mittees of House and Senate, as now constituted, amount to? Those 
committees are dominated by men who favor the high protection idea. 
Chairman Payne and Representatives Dalzell and Grosvenor would 
head the Republican sub-committee to draw the bill, and none of them 
would support such a measure, as the Republican friends of revision 
want.* 

Speaker Cannon in New York Tribune, December, 1905. 

"If some fellow did introduce a tariff bill, and it was argued and 
argued, and at the end of twelve months its advocates could gather 
together enough votes to pass it, the country being held up by the 
tail in the meantime, I think you'd find that the new law would have 
just as many outrageous things in it as are found in the Dingley 
tariff act." 



WHAT REPUBLICANS SAY ON TARIFF. 73 



WHAT REPUBLICANS SAY ON TARIFF. 

A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR INSISTS ON FREE RAW 
MATERIAL. 

Governor Guild of Massachusetts is quoted as saying: "He 
would not run for governor on any platform less liberal than 
tLat of last year. He insists upon putting five articles on the 
free list — iron ore, coal, lumber, hides and paper pulp wood 
stock." 

Governor Guild is another Republican governor that the Roose- 
velt stand-pat letter leaves outside the party trenches. 

SPEAKER CANNON'S OPINION. 

An extract from a letter written by Speaker Cannon to Col. 
John N. Taylor, of the Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Pottery Com- 
pany, at East Liverpool, Ohio, was published in the Washington 
Post on April 5, as follows: 

"I am satisfied there will be no tariff revision this Congress, but it 
goes without saying that the desire for a change which exists in the 
common mind will drive the Republican party, if continued in power, 
to a tariff revision. I do not want it, but it will come in the not 
distant future." 



74 EXPORTS OF MANUFACTURES. 

EXPORTS OF MANUFACTURES. 

LARGE INCREASE FOR THE LAST YEAR. 

A statement issued by the Bureau of Statistics, Department 
of Commerce and Labor, shows that the exports of manufactures 
for the year ending June 30, 1905, amounted to $543,620,297, 
against $452,445,629 in the preceding year. The growth in ex- 
ports of manufactures far exceeds the growth of population or 
the growth in commerce as a whole. 

Iron and steel manufacturers supply about one-fourth of the manu- 
factured articles exported, the total in 1905 having been $134,727,921, 
as against $111,948,586 in the preceding year, an increase of nearly 
twenty-three million dollars. Steel rails showed an increase of 
$6,000 000, chiefly in shipments to Canada, South America, Mexico, 
nf .xV;-^l -Z^^' ^^^ i^^^"^ ^^^ o^^e^ oriental countries, in several 
chi^erv also r^ development is proceeding at a rapid rate. Ma- 
over 7904 A ^'1-^ '""TT "^ ^"^^ ^^^^ «i^ ^illi<^" dollars 
of locZotivt to JaSri ?'"'' '^ 'i" '''^' ^^^^^^^^ '^ -P--t« 
1905, as against 74 ?.;>. ''^'''^^ ^^™^ ^^'^ ^^^* ^1^^*^^^ i" 

increased ?LTpurchasesof\^r"^' ^''"' '^'"^ ""^ ^^^^^^^"^^ 
increased her /^cZleT n/ ^^, T ''\'"^ machines, while Japan 

ware, each in a^rbsLSia'/ dtfer^' "'^'""^ ^"' '^^^^^^^' ^^^'^- 

the^lm^rsecon?"^'''' consisting largely of pigs and bars, form 
tne Item of second importance, the total being $86,225,291 in 1905 

o rrXXl30 0^o1)'oo1?^''' '^^^ precedinWar. 'ThisVot^^ 
oi practically ^{5^0,000,000 in a single year is accountprl for hv nn 
increase of nearly $10,000,000 in ex^ortl to Chi^a $3 OOO.OoS tl Z 
S ^00 on^r^xiT.' f'TT *" ^^^^^^' $3,000 000 to' Germany! 
S'other countri^^^^^ $1,250,000 to Russia, and nearly $2,000,000 

Refined mineral oil ranks third in the exports of manufactures, 
the total being $71,888,317, as against $71,753,552 in the preceding 
year. Ihe quantity increased from 847,000,000 gallons in 1904 to 
951,000,000 in 1905. 

Cotton manufactures present one of the striking features of the 
year's export record, having advanced from $22,403,713 in 1904 to 
$49,666,080 in the year just ended. The growth occurred chiefly 
m cotton cloth exports, $14,696,199 being the total in 1904 and 
$41,320,542 the figure for 1905. To China there was an increase 
of about 400,000,000 yards over last year's exportation of $76,- 
900,000, and the value of our cotton cloth exports to that country 
increased from $4,000,000 in 1904 to $27,750,000 in 1905. Japan 
was the only other country to show a considerable increase in 
takings from us, the total being 16,000,000 yards, valued at $1,125,000, 
as against less than 440,000 yards in 1904, valued at $55,000. 

Leather, and manufactures of, fourth in importance in the list, 
showed an increase of $4,000,000, the total in 1905 having been 
$38,000,000, as compared with $34,000,000 in the preceding year. 
In this class, also, Japan should be credited with the chief in- 
crease. To Japan we exported 16,000,000 pounds of sole leather, 
valued at $4,146,428, as against 2,000,000 pounds, with a valuation 
of about $500,000, in the preceding year. The increase in boots and 
shoes is principally in exports to the West Indies and Mexico, each 
of those countries being credited with about $400,000 in excess of 
the 1904 figures, while the total increase in boot and shoe exports 
to all countries was but little over $818,000. 



EXPORTS OF MANUFACTURES. 



75 



AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS EXPORTED. 

Other important articles exported were: Agricultural imple- 
ments, $20,750,000; chemicals, drugs, dyes, etc., nearly $16,000,000; 
wood manufactures, $12,500,000; cars, carriages and vehicles, $10,- 
666,000; scientific instruments, $8,000,000; paper and manufactures 
of, $8,250,000; paraffin and paraffin wax, $7,750,000; fiber manu- 
factures, $6,750,000; tobacco manufactiires, $5,666,000; books, maps, 
etc., nearly $5,000,000; and india rubber manufactures, $4,750,000. 

The following table shows the values of the principal articles of 
domestic manufacture exported from the United States in the fiscal 
years 1904 and 1905. 



Articles. 

Agricultural implements 

Blacking 

Books, maps, etc 

Brass, and manufactures of 

Bricks 

Candles 

Cars, carriages, and vehicles 

Cement 

Chemicals and drugs 

Clocks and watches 

Copper, and manufactures of 

Cotton manufactures 

Earthen, stone and chinaware 

Fiber manufactures other than of cotton. . 

Glass and glassware 

Gunpowder and other explosives 

India-rubber manufactures 

Instruments and apparatus for scientific 

purposes 

Iron and steel manufactures 

Jewelry, and mauf. of gold and silver 

Lamps and chandeliers 

Leather, and manufactures of 

Malt liquors 

Marble and stone manufactures 

Musical instruments 

Oils, mineral 

Paints, pigments, and colors 

Paper, and manufactures of 

Paraffin and wax 

Plated ware 

Silk manufactures 

Soap 

Spirits, distilled 

Tobacco manuf a ctures - 

Wood manufactures 

Wool manufactures 

Zinc manufactures 

All other manufactured articles 

Total manufactures 

Total agricultural products 

Total, all other articles 

Grand total domestic exports 

Foreign merchandise exported 

Total exports 



1904. 


1905. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


22,749,635 


20,721,741 


597,397 


599,366 


4,347,304 


4,844,160 


2,557,484 


3,025,764 


499,427 


642,501 


510,183 


701,357 


10,036,618 


10,610,437 


530,216 


1,484,795 


14,480,323 


15,859,422 


2,281,195 


2,316,414 


57,142,081 


86,225,291 


22,403,713 


49,666,080 


692,834 


880,827 


6,414,636 


6,766,809 


1,978,481 


2,252,799 


2,441,596 


2,559,837 


4,436,124 


4,780,817 


8,297,723 


8,172,980 


111,948,586 


134,727,921 


1,365,654 


1,419,225 


1,502,888 


1,579,125 


33,980,615 


37,936,745 


854,119 


1,012,808 


1,372,001 


1,055,220 


3,230,982 


3,144,787 


72,487,546 


73,433,787 


2,756,581 


3,126,317 


7,543,728 


8,238,088 


8,859,964 


7,789,160 


693,618 


703,783 


466,519 


620,572 


2,499,933 


2,670,687 


2,276,826 


2,572,152 


5,042,719 


5,690,203 


12,981,112 


12,560,935 


1,987,938 


2,035,054 


258,710 


1,319,619 


17,008,912 


19,872,712 


452,415,921 


543,620,2G7 


853,643,073 


821,074,439 


129,120,023 


127,049,959 


1,435,179,017 


1,491,744,695 


25,648,254 


26,817,025 


1,460,827,271 


1,518,561,720 



SALT INDUSTRY. 



A bulletin issued by the United States Geological Survey states 
that the production of salt in the United States during 1904 was 
22,030,002 barrels (of 280 pounds), valued at $6,021,222, as com- 
pared with 18,968,089 barrels, valued at $5,286,988 m 1903. This 
is the largest production ever reported except in 1902, but the 
average net price per barrel (27.332 cents) is lower than that re- 
ported in 1903 •(27.873 cents) or in any previous year, with the 
exception of 1902, when the average net price realized was only 
23.769 cents a barrel. 

The most noteworthy feature of the year 1904 was the increase 
of 1,193,620 barrels in the production of rock salt. This increase 
was due in large part to the expansion of the salt industry of 



76 TARIFF SHOULD BE REDUCED. 

Louisiana, where rock salt is easily and cheaply mined in the 
"mounds" which occur in the southern part of the State, 

The chief salt-producing States are New York and Michigan, and 
the combined output from these two States amounts to about two- 
thirds of the total production of the United States. The five leading 
salt-producing States during 1904 were New York, 8,600,656 barrels; 
Michigan, 5,425,904 barrels; Ohio, 2,455,829 barrels; Kansas, 2,161,- 
819 barrels, and Louisiana, 1,095,850 barrels. 

The actual consumption of salt in 1904 was 23,116,971 barrels, or 
about 2.46 times what it was in 1880. 

The imports of salt in 1904 amounted to 332,279,481 pounds. 
Great Britain contributed 98,943,611 pounds, worth $301,696; Italy, 
106,060,288 pounds, valued at $75,756; Canada, 11,102,273 pounds, 
valued at $27,529; West Indies, 105,160,371 pounds, worth $89,878, 
and other countries 20,882,959 pounds, valued at $20,371. The 
total value of all the imported salt was thus $515,230. 

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1904, the movement of 
exported salt changed notably from the course of trade in the pre- 
vious year. Exports to Japan dropped off about 38 per cent., prob- 
ably on account of the war with Russia, but trade with Mexico 
more than doubled, and the already large exportation to the Do- 
minion of Canada increased nearly 100 per cent. The total exports 
during the year ending June 30, 1904, were 25,508,577 pounds, valued 
at $99,066, whereas in the year ending June 30, 1903, 16,446,380 
pounds were exported at a valuation of $70,296, an increase for 1904 
of 55.1 per cent, in quantity, but of only 40.9 per cent, in value. 



TARIFF SHOULD BE REDUCED. 

TO CURB A TRUST IN MACHINERY— A LEADING REPUB- 
LICAN SPEAKS. 

Boston, Mass., February 20, 1891. 
Testimony of Mr. Charles L. hovering, treasurer of the Merrimac Mills. 

The subcommission being in session in the rooms of the Home 
Market Club, Mr. Clarke, presiding, at 3 o'clock p. m., Mr. Charles L. 
Lovering, of Boston, treasurer of the Merrimac and other mills, was 
introduced as a witness, and, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Q. (By Mr. Clarke.) Please give your name and postoffice address. — 
A. Charles L. Lovering; Taunton is my voting place and Boston my 
living place; postofiice box 2344, Boston. 

Q. Please state your official relation to manufacturing companies. — 
A. I am treasurer of several corporations. 

Q. Name them or some of them. — A. Yes; of the Massachusetts 
Cotton Mills, of Lowell; the Merrimac Manufacturing Company, of 
Lowell; the Massachusetts, in Georgetown, Ga.; the Merrimac Manu- 
facturing Company, at Huntsville, Ala. The Alabama concern is not 
a separate corporation; it is a part of the northern mills; it is a 
property I am not particularly familiar with. 

Q. Any other mill in Massachusetts except at Lowell? — A. I am 
treasurer of the Whittington Manufacturing Company, at Taunton, 
but it so happens that mj brother does most of the "work. He is the 
assistant treasurer and does whatever has to be done there except when 
we want a little money or cotton. 

Q. Are all these mills engaged in manufacturing cotton goods? — A. 
Entirely. 



TARIFF SHOULD BE REDUCED. 77 

A VICTIM OF PROTECTION WANTED TARIFF REVISION. 

Q. (BY MR. CLARKE.) WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THE 
TARIFF REVISED OR LET ALONE?— A. I WOULD LIKE TO 
HAVE IT REVISED. I AM AN EXPORTER. I WANT TEE 
WORLD. 

Q. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE IT CHANGED?— A. 
THAT I AM NOT ABLE TO TELL YOU. I CANNOT GO INTO 
THAT DISCUSSION, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE PLACES 
WHERE WE ARE A LITTLE BIT HANDICAPPED. FOR IN- 
STANCE, IF I WANT TO MAKE A REPAIR UP HERE AT THE 
MILL AT LOWELL OR IN THE SOUTH I AM HANDICAPPED 
WITH THE HIGH COST OF MACHINERY— TWO AND A HALF 
TIMES AS MUCH AS THE ENGLISH PRICE. THE ENGLISH 
CAN BUILD A MILL AND CAPITALIZE IT AT A THIRD OF 
WHAT WE CAN HERE. THAT MEANS SOMETHING IN THE 
COST OF GOODS IN THE LONG RUN. 

Q. YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GET CHEAPER MA- 
CHINERY?— A. I WOULD LIKE THE MACHINERY SOjMEWHAT 
REDUCED. THE MACHINERY BUILDERS OF THIS COUNTRY 
ARE SO WELL PROTECTED THAT UNDER THE PROTECTION 
THEY HAVE A SCHEME WHEREBY THERE IS BUT ONE PRICE 
FOR ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY. 

Q. DOES THIS FACT APPLY TO MACHINERY ON WHICH 
THEY HAVE PATENTS, OR OTHERWISE ?— A. I DO NOT REFER 
TO THE PATENT PART OF IT. THE TIME WAS, A FEW YEARS 
AGO, WHEN THEY COULD GET TWO OR THREE PRICES ON 
MACHINERY. THEY SAID THEY DID NOT MAKE MONEY 
THAT WAY. I AM NOT GOING TO DISPUTE THAT, BUT WHEN 
YOU GET THE PRICE OF GOODS WAY DOWN BELOW, WE CAN- 
NOT GET THE MACHINERY DOWN TO HELP US OUT ANY. 

Q. YOU THINK THE HIGH PRICE OF MACHINERY, THEN, 
IS LARGELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DUTIES ON IT?— A. I 
THINK THE MANUFACTURERS ARE ENABLED UNDER THE 
DUTIES TO COMBINE. FOR INSTANCE, SEVERAL YEARS AGO 
I WAS INTERESTED IN A LARGE COTTON- YARN CONCERN; 
AND AT THAT TIME WE COULD BRING ALL OUR CARDS 
FROM ENGLAND AT A LOW PRICE BECAUSE WE COULD 
BRING THEM HERE AND PAY THE DUTIES AND SAVE QUITE 
A LITTLE AMOUNT AND GET AS GOOD A CARD. A RING- 
SPINNING FRAME IS BETTER BUILT IN THIS COUNTRY THAN 
ABROAD. A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE MACHINERY ALL 
THROUGH THE CARDING ROOM IS EQUALLY GOOD ABROAD, 
AND COULD BE GOT AT A LESS FIGURE AT THAT TIME. BUT 
I AM NOT A COMPLAINER IN ANY SENSE. I DO NOT THINK 
WE CAN GO ON IN THIS COUNTRY MAKING COTTON GOODS 
AT THE RATE WE ARE NOW MAKING THEM WITHOUT AN 
OUTSIDE MARKET AND A MUCH LARGER ONE THAN WE 
HAVE TODAY. 

Q. Do you think there is anything in the way of getting that market 
except the high cost of machinery? — ^A. I do not know that I would 
say that there is not. There are some countries I imagine we cannot 
get into. I have not much knowledge about it. There are countries 
we cannot put our goods into. 

Q. Then any change in our tariff would not affect that? — ^A. It 
might. We might he aUe to get into other countries. 

Q. (By Mr. Litchman.) Have not they got the advantage of the 
importation of machinery without the payment of duty? — ^A. Oh, yes; 
Germany has. 

Q. How could you possibly get into those countries ? — ^A. We do not 
expect to put any cloth into Germany or England. 

Q. HOW COULD YOU GET INTO THE COUNTRIES THAT 
GERMANY SUPPLIES, EXCEPT BY A REDUCTION IN THE 
PRICE OF LABOR?— A. I TELL YOU NOW I HONESTLY THINK 
THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE HIGH COST OF LABOR PER 



78 TARIFF SHOULD BE REDUCED. 

YARD IN THIS COUNTRY A GREAT MANY GOODS ARE MADE 
AT AS LOW A PRICE AS THEY ARE MADE IN GERMANY WITH 
LOW-PRICE LABOR. 

Q. ON ACCOUNT OF SUPERIOR SKILL AND PRODUCTION? 
A. YES; BETTER CLIMATE, ETC. BUT I AM NOT MUCH OF A 
TALKER ON THE TARIFF, EXCEPT THAT I WANT ALL THE 
OUTSIDE MARKETS v\^E CAN GET; AND I AM FREE TO SAY 
WE CANNOT GO ON AND MAKE GOODS AS WE ARE NOW 
DOING WITHOUT SUCH MARKET. 

Q. (Bjl MR. CLARKE.) DOES THE PROSPECT OF REVISING 
THE TARIFF HAVE ANY EFFECT ON BUSINESS GENERALLY? 
A. IT DOES, BUT IT IS A THING WHICH THE PEOPLE WILL 
GET OVER AFTER A WHILE. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO 
HAVE A HERCULEAN OPERATION TO CURE A MAN— CUT OFF 
HIS LEG OR SOMETHING. 

Q. THE BUSINESS DEPRESSION, THEN, INCIDENT TO A RE- 
VISION WOULD NOT DETER YOU FROM ADVISING A RE- 
VISION?— A. NO; IT DOES NOT. I SHOULD NOT BE INTELLI- 
GENT ENOUGH TO MAKE A REVISION; I DO NOT KNOW 
ENOUGH ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK THAT TO LIVE AND LET 
LIVE THE WORLD OVER IS RATHER THE BEST WAY TO 
GET ALONG. 

Q. YOU THINK THE COTTON-GOODS SCHEDULE CAN STAND 
ANY REDUCTION?— A. ALMOST EVERYTHING I MAKE CAN 
GET ALONG WITHOUT ANY TARIFF, BECAUSE WE CAN BEAT 
ENGLAND NOW IN MANY MARKETS. THE ENGLISH CANNOT 
MAKE A DRILL OF THE SAME CAPACITY, OF THE SAME 
STANDARD AS WE MAKE, AND COMPETE WITH US IN 
CHINA. THEY MAKE AN INFERIOR DRILL AND THEREFORE 
GET THERE. 

Q. If you had no duties would there be any danger of the dumping 
of the surplus stocks in this country so as to demoralize the market? 
A. I do not think so. But everybody must be treated with the same 
consideration, in my opinion. I do not think you can discriminate in 
my favor against somebody else making finer yarn. 

Q. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF 
REVISING THE TARIFF YOU WOULD STILL RECOMMEND IT? 
A. I WOULD RECOMMEND A LOWER TARIFF. IT OCCURS TO 
ME IF THERE WAS A LOWER RATE OF DUTY PROPERLY AP- 
PLIED TO ALL PRODUCTIONS IT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR 
THE COUNTRY. WE GO TO WORK AND MAKE GOODS AT A 
HIGH COST, AND THEN RAISE THE LABOR; AND EVERY- 
THING THAT LABOR HAS TO BUY IT HAS TO PAY MORE FOR, 
SO THAT IT IS NOT MUCH BETTER OFF. I THINK, HOWEVER, 
LABOR IS AS WELL PAID TODAY AS I HAVE KNOWN IT TO 
BE IN THIS COUNTRY. 

Q. ARE THE GOODS YOU SELL MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A 
WHILE AGO?— A. A GOOD DEAL. IT IS NOT TWO YEARS 
SINCE THAT OUR GOODS HAVE INCREASED IN COST AT 
LOWELL 20 PER CENT. THE INCREASE IS 25 PER CENT. 
SINCE 1888. 

Q. What is that increase in cost due to? — ^A. To two 10 per cent, 
advances in labor, which makes 20 per cent; and in the supplies 

THAT GO INTO IT. 

Q. Ih THE TARIFF WAS REDUCED, WOULD NOT LABOR 
HAVE TO BE CONTENT WITH A LESS WAGE?— A. YES; BUT 
IT COULD BUY WHAT IT GETS FOR LESS. THE POINT IS, 
THE LOWER YOU CAN OFFER A COMMODITY TO THE WORLD 
THE BIGGER BUSINESS YOU CAN DO. YOU CAN DO TWICE 
AS MUCH BUSINESS WITH CHINA WITH A DRILL AT 5 CENTS 
AS AT 7 CENTS. THE SAME IS TRUE IN SOUTH AMERICA; 
IT IS ALSO TRUE IN AFRICA. THOSE ARE THE GREAT CON- 
SUMING COUNTRIES OF THE COARSE PRODUCTS MADE 
NORTH AND SOUTH IN THIS COUNTRY. 

Q. Before this present war in China, were the Chinese manufactur- 
ing cotton goods to some extent ? — ^A. Yes ; to some extent. I do not 
know to how great an extent, but their goods never interfered with 



TARIFF SHOULD BE REDUCED. 79 

well-made and well-constructed American goods. They did not take 
the same place. They went to parts of China where they were willing 
to wear an inferior article. 

Q. Do you know of any reason why they cannot produce as good 
goods there as you can here ? — A. I do not think they can. The morale 
of the country or of the labor there is not at all commensurate or to 
be compared with ours. The very idea that a man can live on a 
cent's or two-thirds of a cent's worth of rice does not to my mind per- 
mit him to compete with the man that lives on a piece of beef. 

Q. Are you familiar with cotton goods made in India? — ^A. I have 
seen them. 

Q. How do they compare? — A. I do not think they are as good as 
goods made in England. 

Q. Have you seen any of the Japanese cottons? — A. Yes. 

Q. How do they compare? — A.. Very well made, indeed. 

Q. Do you understand the cotton manufacturing industry is rapidly 
increasing in Japan? — A. It is said to be and must be, because I be- 
lieve the Japanese took something like 100,000 bales of cotton from 
this country last year. 

Q. Do you know what it costs per yard to bring cotton North from 
Alabama to New York? — A. No; I cannot tell you. I was shipping 
some goods to Shanghai ; I believe that is where they were to go. We 
had already contracted to ship some by way of California direct from 
the Southern mill, making the New York allowance of freight 53 
points; We made some shipments that way, but it came out we 
could send the goods by way of New York and by way of the Suez 
Canal for 98 points, whereas they went for 115 from the Southern 
mill, against which we allowed 53 points. 

Q. You understand Japan is exporting some cotton yarns and cotton 
cloths. — ^A. I have heard so. 

Q. Do you know how wages compare in Japan with Massachusetts? 
A. I do not. I suppose they must be a great deal less. 

(Vol. XIV, Industrial Commission's Keport, Page 528 to 533.) 



80 WAGES. 



WAGES. 

DISASTROUS EFFECT OF McKINLEY TARIFF ON WAGE- 
EARNERS. 

When the McKinley tariff went into effect wages were cut down 
in nearly every industry, on the products of which increased 
duties were imposed. Here are a few of these reductions taken 
from a much larger list published in the Tariff Reform of July 
30, 1892. 

OCTOBER, 1890. 

October 16. The Richland and Nelson miners, at Dayton, 
Tenn., to the number of 1,200, are on a strike against a reduction 
of wages. 

October 16. Miners and mine laborers are requested to stay 
away from Etna coal mines, Tennessee, as there is a strike there 
against the reduction in wages. The place is crowded with the 
unemployed. 

October 21. The members of the Leather-Worker Protective 
Association, K. of L., are on a strike at the morocco factory of 
McDermott & Howard, Schenck street and Park avenue, Brooklyn, 
N. Y., as their wages had been reduced from $12 to $9 per week, 
and more work was expected of them than before the reduction. 

October 28. The silk ribbon weavers at Boss Levy's shop in 
New York city had their wages reduced last week about 10 per 
cent. The reduction is now being taken off, as the men threatened 
to strike. 

NOVEMBER, 1890. 

November 17. Textile workers should not go to Lowell, Mass., 
where the wages of the mill hands have been reduced. 

November 18. Spinners in Clark's O. N. T. mills at Newark, 
N. J,, and Kearney, N. J., have had their wages reduced gradually, 
and since the McKinley Bill passed, instead of the promised 
advances, there has been a further reduction of 9 per cent. They 
now threaten to strike and throw out 450. 

November 20. Two thousand girls employed in the trimming 
departments of the eighteen hat factories connected with the Fur 
Hat Manufacturers Association, in Danbury, Conn., were locked 
out yesterday. 

November 24. The vest makers of J. Rosenbaum, 118 Avenue 
D, New York city, are on a strike against a reduction of wages. 

DECEMBER, 1890. 

December 4. At Brooklyn over two thousand cigar-makers have 
been idle a month. They make from $5 to $10 a week. 

December 4. The Safe Harbor Rolling Mills in Lancaster, Pa., 
has shut down for an indefinite period. 

December 11. There may be a general strike of the 5,000 
pottery workers throughout the United States, as the association 



WAGE8. 81 



of potteries (the trust) has announced a reduction of wages 
amounting to 10 and even 40 per cent. 

December 11. Report from Newark, N. J., says: "Three 
thousand are out here because the Clark mills at Newark and 
Kearney are shut down." 

December 18. The large Pond Machine Tool Company of 
Plainfield, N. J., has to discharge men because of dullness instead 
of employing more, as they said they would under the McKinley 
bill. Prices of tools have increased. 

December 18. A general reduction of wages of 15 to 20 per 
cent, has been announced to the silk-ribbon weavers at Adams 
mills in Patterson, N. J., making the average wages now about $7 
per week. 

December 31. Springfield, 111., miners in the West end coal 
mines struck against 10 cents per capita tax by the company. 

JANUARY, 1891. 

January 1. Lackawanna Iron and Coal Company, Scranton, 
Pa., an average wage reduction of 20 cents per day. 

January 1. Homestead Steel Works, Carnegie, PMpps & Co., 
reduction of wages 10 per cent., 'by agreement. 

January 1. Pullman Palace Car Company's works; new ^cale, 
making a wage reduction of about 10 per cent. 

January 8. The Frick Coke Company, in Scottdale, Pa., has 
given notice that they will shut down 1,100 more coke ovens 
indefinitely next week, which will throw about 1,200 men out of 
employment. No cause is given for the shut-down. There are 
now 4,000 idle coke ovens in that region. 

January 8. The shops of the Illinois Steel Works in Chicago, 
except the blast furnaces, shut down Wednesday night. One 
thousand five hundred men were thrown out of employment. 

January 15. Four hundred men were laid off at the Scranton 
Steel Mills at Scranton, Pa., owing, it is said, to the dullness of 
the steel trade. 

January 15. The Scottdale Rolling Mills and Pipe Works and 
the Charlotte Furnace at Scottdale, Pa., have shut down indefi- 
nitely. One thousand men thrown out of employment. 

January 16. Report from Massachusetts says the Zylonite 
Works, at Adams, now partly closed, are to be shut down entirely 
by the celluloid trust, to which it belongs. Seven hundred will 
be thrown out of work. 

January 21. The lasters are preparing for a general reduction 
of wages to be proposed by the Shoe Manufactory Association (the 
trust) . 

January 22. A dispatch from Cleveland, Ohio, says that 16 
blast furnaces, all but two in the Mahoning Valley, have been 
shut down in pursuance of an agreement reached two weeks ago. 
Ten thousand men are It.rown out of employment. 

January 22. Mechanics and laborers are warned to stay away 
from Galveston, Texas. The place is crowded with men out of 
employment. There is no work to be had and wages are down to 
starvation point. 



82 WAGES. 



January 22. The window glass works at Zanesville, Ohio, con- 
trolled by the United Glass Company, have shut down for an 
indefinite period. 

January 22. The employees of the Cambria Iron Company have 
been notified of a reduction of 10 per cent, in their wages. This 
will affect 5,000 men from workers to miners. 

January 22. A despatch from Ashland, Pa., says that orders 
have been issued from the Reading Coal and Iron headquarters 
to stop work at the North Island, Monitor, Merriam and Otto 
collieries. Several hundred men will be thrown out of employ- 
ment. 

January 29. One thousand employees of the Bethlehem Iron 
Company, in Bethlehem, Pa., have deen informed of a reduction 
of wages of 10 per cent, after February 1. Depression in the 
trade is attributed as the cause. 

FEBRUARY, 1891. 

February 2. Brooks Iron Company, Birsborro, Pa., closed and 
450 men thrown out of work because they refused to accept a 
reduction of 7 per cent. 

February 2. The Crane Iron Works, Allentown, Pa., a wage 
reduction of 10 per cent, took place. 

February 6. The silk ribbon weavers of Steinhart's shop on 
Fiftieth street. New York city, who went out on a strike against 
a reduction of 25 per cent., have compromised with the firm, 
accepting a reduction of 15 per cent. 

February 10. Sixteen thousand coke workers strike against a 
reduction of wages of 10 per cent., demanding on the other hand 
a 121/^ per cent, advance and eight hours instead of nine. 

February 12. The works of the Ellis & Lessing Steel and Iron 
Company, in Pottstown, Pa., were closed on Monday. About 700 
men were employed. 

MARCH, 1891. 

March 5. The Big Run colliery at Ashland, Pa., shut down on 
Saturday for an indefinite period. The suspension will affect 300 
men and boys. 

March 6. Illinois Steel Company: 2,500 men idle, owing to 
their refusal to accept what appears to have been a reduction. 

March 12. Over five hundred men at the Wanskuck Mill, 
Providence, R. I., went out on a strike last week on account of a 
reduction in wages. 

March 12. The Scranton Steel Mill has given notice to its 750 
employees of a reduction in wages to take effect March 15. 

March 12. Crane Iron Work laborers are down to $1 per day. 

March 19. The Bear Ridge, Beechwood, and Reliance collieries, 
at St. Clair, Pa., operated by the Reading Company, suspended on 
Saturday for an indefinite period. The North Franklin will shut 
down soon. This adds 2,000 men and boys to the number of the 
unemployed. 

March 19. Work at the coal mines of Rondville, Hocking Com- 
pany, Ohio, has suspended for several weeks. The miners are in 
a destitute condition and the t^mUi^S of many of them are suffer- 
ing for the necessities of life. 



WAGES. 83 



March 19. Workingmen are warned from going to Blocton, 
Ala., more than 300 idle men in town. 

March 26. One hundred and thirty ribbon weavers in the 
Pioneer Silk Mill in Paterson, N. J., were locked out by the firm 
last week. 

March 26. The 1,000 girls and men employed by the Armstrong 
Bros. & Co., cork manufacturers, went out on a strike last week. 

March 28. The Lochiel Iron Works at Harrisburg, Pa., have 
shut down. 

APRIL, 1891. 

April 1. The Reading Iron Company's 2,000 employees were 
told on March 27 that a reduction of wages would be made. 

April 2. The iron mining companies of the Northwest have 
reduced wages 10 per cent, or more; many thousand men are 
getting less p^y and deprived of work, 

April 9. Twelve brick manufacturing firms of Trenton, N. J., 
have announced a reduction of wages of from 15 to 20 per cent. 
The reason assigned is a falling off in the demand for brick. 

April 15. Three hundred shirt makers are locked out by their 
bosses in New York city. 

April 24. The tin, sheet and iron workers employed at the 
Jordan L. Moot Iron Works, New York city, are on a strike against 
a reduction of wages. 

April 29. The skilled laborers of Paterson, N. J., who formerly 
earned from $25 to $35 per week, complain that they average from 
$10 to $12 at present. 

April 30. Mechanics, miners and laborers are requested to stay 
away from Butte City, Mont., as the camp is crowded with idle 
men. The largest mine has been closed down and more than 1,800 
have been discharged. 

MAY, 1891. 

May 7. From the formation of the trust in straw goods the 
workers of that trade are expecting a general reduction of wages 
throughout the country and the dismissal of many union men, as 
the managers have prepared a black list. 

May 7. The cigar makers of New York and Baltimore, the 
leather finishers of Newark, N. J., the morocco workers of Lynn, 
Mass., the weavers of Hopedale, Mass., the spinners of Lowell, 
Mass., the coal miners of Illinois, the hat makers of Melburn, 
Mass., and the employees of the Crane Coal Company of 
Catasauqua, Pa., all had their wages reduced on this day. Some 
of these bodies of men struck. 

May 14. The Journal of the Knights of Labor says: 

"Notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturers of sanitary 
ware at Trenton, N. J., even before tue passage of the present tariff 
bill, and while acting and in singly and in competition with each 
other, were making adequate profits and needed no further pro- 
tection ; notwithstanding the fact that by the present tariff bill duties 
are so heavy that foreign competition is impossible; notwithstand- 
ing the fact that by the formation of a trust they can and do enact 
a scale of prices which must of necessity be paid for their wares, as 
the people have no redress and are at the mercy of the members of 
the trust, no sooner HAS THE NEW TARIFF LAW BEEN SIGNED 



84 WAGES. 



BY THE PRESIDENT THAN THE TRUST ARBITRARILY IS- 
SUES ITS DECREE REDUCING THE WAGES OF ITS WORK- 
MEN 26 TO 32 PER CENT. ON THE PRICE PAID BEFORE FOR 
ITS LABOR." * * * 

May 21. The Howard Match Company, of Boston, will discharge 
100 men and run on three-quarter time after June 1. 

May 28. Nearly all the large cigar factories in Key West are 
closed. Four thousand cigar makers are out of employment. 

May 28. The Pennsylvania Saw Company, recently bought up 
by the saw trust, has been closed. 

JUNE, 1891. 

June 25. Fall River's 22,000 textile workers are threatened 
with 10 per cent, reduction. 

June 26. The great Anaconda Mining Company 4ias shut down 
for months. There are crowds of idle miners in this camp who 
cannot secure employment. 

June 30. The Southern Steel Company, Chattanooga, Tenn., the 
Emma Blast Furnace, Cleveland, Ohio, Saxony Knitting Mills, 
Little Falls, N. Y., Merrimac Mills, Lowell, Mass., the Bates Mill, 
Lewiston, Me., the Adelaide Silk Mill, Allentown, Pa., all made 
a reduction in wages on this day. 

JULY, 1891. 

July 9. The Huntington Manufacturing Company, at Hunting- 
ton, Pa., which is controlled by the Iron Car Equipment Company, 
of New York, has indefinitely suspended operations, throwing 350 
men out of employment. 

July 9. Six hundred men and boys in the Broad Top (Pa.) coal 
regions are becoming discontented because starvation stares them 
in the face on account of the three-month shut down. 

July 16. The Cooke Locomotive Works, in Paterson, N. J., 
employing 1,000 men will close in a few days, owing to dullness 
in the season. 

July 23. The proposed reduction in the pay of the Monongahela 
River miners from 3l^ to 3 cents per bushel is likely to cause a 
strike of 6,000 and the shutting down of the works between 
August 1 and 15. 

July 28. Last week five boss tailors have reduced the wages of 
their working girls who were locked out when they declared that 
they would not accept a reduction of wages. 

AUGUST, 1891. 

August 1. The wages of the Lehigh and Wilkesbarre Coal 
Company miners have been reduced. 

August 13. The American Glucose Company, which has fac- 
tories in Buffalo, New York and other cities, and agencies in some 
of the large cities* has commenced a general reduction in salaries 
and wages. 

August 13. During the campaign of 1888, when protective tariff 
was the issue, the employees of the Arcade File Works, of Sing 
Sing, N. Y., one of the largest file manufactories in America, were 



WAGES. 85 



promised a large increase of wages if Harrison should be elected. 
This promise has not been kept. Wages were reduced last Friday 
from 30 to 50 per cent,, according to the work done. 

August 14. One hundred cloakmakers, cutters, finishers and 
pressers with Julius Stein & Co., 507 Broadway, Freedman Bros., 
332 Canal street, and a few with Benjamin & Caspary, Broome 
street, New York city, strike because of low wages and a reduction 
of percentage to pay pressers. 

August 20. Two hundred men employed by the Gloucester Iron 
Works, Gloucester, N. J., are out of work because they would not 
accept a reduction in their wages. 

SEPTEMBER, 1891. 

September 8. Trouble is ahead at Fall River. The Cotton 
Manufacturers Association met September 2 and voted to reduce 
wages. The reduction will take place October 5, and it is believed 
will average 10 per cent. 

September 12. The tobacco workers in Gail & Ax's and Marburg 
Bros, factory, Baltimore, Md., let their organization go to pieces 
just before the big trust got hold on the factories, and wages are 
being reduced. 

September 17. Girls working in the cereal works of Akron, 
Ohio, «,fter submitting to a 50 per cent, reduction for two weeks, 
struck and issued an appeal to the Knights of Labor and the 
people. The firm for which these girls worked paid good wages 
until they were taken into the trust. 

September 24. The Gap furnace and rolling mill at Hollidays- 
burg. Pa., which has been idle for some time, were sold last week 
to a New York corporation, which will begin work at once. The 
works employ 500 men. 

September 24. The employees of the St. Charles Iron Furnace 
at Columbia, Pa., have been notified that the furnace will be 
blown out for an indefinite period. Nearly 300 men will be 
thrown out of work. 

OCTOBER, 1891. 

October 8. The American Waltham Watch Company has 
announced a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent, in the wages of 900 
of its employees. 

October 22. After a conference between General Manager 
Schwab, of the Edgar Thomson Steel Works at Braddock, Pa., 
and the converting mill employees a new scale has been decided 
upon. 

October 28. Agricultural implements at Akron, Ohio, has 
recently cut down wages. 

October 29. The watch manufacturers of Canton, Ohio, have 
cut down the wages of their men. 

NOVEMBER, 1891. 

November 4. John C. Dueber, Canton, Ohio, watch manufac- 
turer, a firm believer in the high tariff to increase the wages of 
the workingmen, has given his employees the benefit of a 20 per 
cent, "readjustment" in v/ages from their pockets into his own. 



86 WAGES. 



November 6. The Union men in San Francisco breweries are 
to be locked out in order to break up the union and reduce wages. 

November 12. The entire plant of the Oxford Iron and Nail 
Company at Oxford, N. J., was shut down Saturday. One hundred 
men were thrown out. 

November 22. Hundreds of workmen are idle in Paterson, N. 
J., as many factories have laid off large numbers of their workers. 

November 28. The great Pittsburg firm of Jones & Loughlin 
has reduced the wages of 500 employees from $1.50 to $1.35 per 
day. The men say that they are powerless to resist and there will 
be no strike. 

DECEMBER, 1891. 

December 3. The famous Dickerson mine, on Mine Hill, Hack- 
ettstown, N. J., has suspended operations. Hundreds of families 
will be compelled to go elsewhere to find employment. 

December 17. The situation in the bituminous coal regions of 
Indiana, in which some 20,000 miners are on a strike against wage 
reduction, is a gloomy one for the diggers in the bowels of the 
earth. 

December 17. The coopers employed at Mathieson & Weichers 
sugar refinery, Jersey City, N. J., are on a .strike against a reduc- 
tion in wages. 

December 24... The Union Coal Company, Shamokiri, Pa., 
collieries have shut down work and thrown 600 men out of 
employment. 

December 31. John and James Dobson, manufacturers of plush 
in Philadelphia, have again reduced the wages of their weavers, 
and they are now 24 per cent, lower than before the McKinley 
bill was passed. 

JANUARY, 1892. 

January 4. The wages of the 3000 employees of the Elgin 
Watch Company, Elgin, 111., have been cut from 15 to 60 per cent, 
and they threaten to strike. Several hundred of them walked 
out yesterday. ***** 

It is asserted also that the employees of the Waltham "Watch 
Company are about to strike against a reduction of wages. 

January 7. Notices of an indefinite suspension of work were 
posted on Saturday at the Red Ash Collieries Nos. 1 and 2 at 
Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 

January 14. New Year's Day was not a very happy one for the 
families of the unfortunate miners and puddlers of Oxford Fur- 
nace at Oxford, N. J. The mills of the Oxford Nail and Foundry 
Company have been shut down for over two months. Nobody 
knows when they will start up, and when representatives of the 
company are questioned about the matter they refuse to talk. It 
is a mysterj'- how the people live. In many of the houses there 
has not been a coal fire for weeks. Every day children, thinly 
clad, can be seen going to the woods and returning with bundles 
of broken branches of trees to be used for fuel. * * * * if 
something is not done soon families are likely to starve to death. 



WAGES. 87 



FEBRUARY, 1892. 

February 14. Owing to the continual depression in the iron 
trade the Chesapeake Nail Works and the puddling department 
of the Central Iron Works shut down tonight, throwing between 
200 and 800 men out of employment. 

February 20. The Pottsville (Pa.) Iron and Steel Company 
will reduce the wages of its 600 employees at Pottsville 10 per 
cent. 

February 20. The puddling department of the Central Iron 
Works at Harrisburg, Pa., shut down Saturday night, throwing 
200 men out of employment. The men would not accept the re- 
duction. 

February 25. The Columbia Iron and Steel Company of Pitts- 
burg, whose plant is located at Uniontown, Pa,, have made a de- 
mand for a reduction of 25 per cent, in the wages of their em- 
ployees. 

MARCH, 1892. 

March 3. A cut from 10 to 20 per cent, was made among the 
piece workers in several works of the Singer Sewing Machine 
Works at Elizabeth, N. J., and caused great dissatisfaction among 
the 4000 employees. 

March 8. Notices were posted yesterday in three rolling mills 
of Lebanon, Pa., of a reduction of wages of 12 1/^ per cent, to go 
into effect on Monday, March 21. The reduction was made to 
tidt over the dull trade and keep the hands employed. 

March 10. A general reduction in wages of about 10 per cent, 
is being put in operation in the iron furnaces in Birmingham, Ala. 

March 15. About 1000 trouser makers struck work yesterday 
because their employers refused to sign a contract with the union 
for the ensuing year. ************** 

March 17. Twelve more iron furnaces at Birmingham, Ala., 
reduced wages 10 per cent, on Tuesday because of the low price 
of iron. The men accept the inevitable. 

March 28. The Phoenix Iron Works, of Trenton, N. J., which 
has been working on government contracts, will permanently 
close. Over 200 workmen, receiving no encouragement, are seek- 
ing employment elsewhere. 

APRIL, 1892. 

April 6. Window glass factories will shut down May 31. * * 

April 7. Two hundred 'blacksmiths in the axle department of 
Carnegie's Twenty-ninth Street Mill in Pittsburg struck on Satur- 
day against a 10 per cent, reduction in loages. 

April 10. The Keystone Iron Mills of Pittsburg, Pa., employ- 
ing 400 men, shut down a week ago today for an indefinite period. 

April 10. Fifty of the best paid loorkmen at the Edgar Thom- 
son Steel Works of Andrew Carnegie at Braddock, Pa., were dis- 
charged this week. 

April 13. The Quaker Oatmeal Mills of Ravenna, Ohio, em- 
ploying 150 men, have shut down indefinitely. This is part of the 
American Cereal Company, "The Oatgieal Trust," to limit pro- 



88 WAGES. 



duction and force prices up in order that some return can be 
earned on its capital. 

April 17. The Reading Iron Company of Reading, Pa., an- 
nounces that a general reduction will be made in the wages of all 
employees in a few days, ranging from 5 to 10 per cent. 

April 21. Of the eleven nail mills in Massachusetts nine are 
idle and the other two are making no profit. 

April 25. It was reported that 600 men had been thrown out of 
work in the Lehigh Valley coal region by the combine of the 
Reading with several other railroads. ********* 

MAY, 1892. 

May 1. There has 'been a reduction in the wages of Andrew 
Carnegie at his Lower Union Mills in Pittsburg. Seventy-five 
blacksmiths accepted the cut of about 20 per cent, without mur- 
mur, but seventy-five hammermen struck. ******* 

May 5. The brickmakers of Philadelphia have been notified 
by their bosses that their wages will be reduced from $3.25 to 
$2.50 per day next week. A general strike will follow. 

May 11. Maine has lost her smelting industry. The Katahdin 
Iron Works, which suspended in 1890, has now removed to Pictou, 
Nova Scotia. 

May 16. The Cigar-Makers' Union, No. 90, reports that at 
present about 700 cigar-makers are on strike in New York city, and 
that 400 more will strike this week, as the bosses intend cutting 
down wages by introducing the team-work system. 

May 21. One hundred and fifty girls employed in the pearl but- 
ton factory, Detroit, Mich., are on a strike against a reduction in 
their wages. The factory was started soon after the passage of 
the McKinley bill and was visited by Governor McKinley at the 
time of the Michigan Club banquet on February 22. The girls 
who were making $3.50 a week will now only be able to make $3. 

JUNE, 1882. 

June 5. At a mass meeting of the Cloth Hat and Capmakers' 
Union in New York today over 700 men, representing twenty-six 
out of thirty shops in the city, discussed the grievance of the 
wage reduction. It was said that during the last year several 
reductions in their wages at different times have made a total 
reduction of 70 per cent., and that during the best four months 
of the year the best men have been unable to earn more than $6 
a week. They will make an effort to get wages back above starva- 
tion point. 

Pitiable as is the lot of these men, it is now worse than that of 
hatmakers elsewhere in this country since the McKinley bill 
came their way. A few years ago the hat factories of Bloomfield, 
Watsessung and East Orange, N. J., were prosperous and «ave 
steady employment to hundreds of hands, nearly all of whom 
voted for "protection." The almost prohibitive duty on hatters' 
raw materials has caused the business to dwindle, until now no 
mill in' Bloomfield is running on full time and many of the em* 
ploye^s have sought work elsewhere. 



WAGES. 89 



June 16. The Pittsburg Forge and Iron Company, which em- 
ploys 1000 men in its Allegheny Works, has notified its men that 
on July 1 a general reduction in wages must be made irrespective 
of any scale or rules of workmen in the tin-plate and sheet-iron 
industries. 

June 19. The Minnesota mine at Tower, Minn., employing 1400, 
shut down last night by reason of a strike against a reduction of 
10 per cent, in surfacemen's wages. 

June 30. All the glass factories at Bellaire, Ohio, have been 
permanently shut down, the manufacturers claiming that they 
cannot compete with those located in natural gas towns. About 
650 men are out. 

June 30. Ten thousand miners in the San Juan district of 
Colorado will strike July 1 against a reduction of wages agreed 
upon by the managers. 

JULY, 1892. 

July 1. Rolling mill employees in Philadelphia, numbering 
upward of 1000, quit work last evening because of the refusal of 
their employees to sign the scale of wages that has been in force 

July 2. The Illinois Steel Company of Joliet, 111., have given 
their men an annual dose of "protection." The rod mill went out 
on account of a 45 per cent, reduction, which they refused to ac- 
cept. The entire plant was then shut down. * * * * About 
2700 employees are affected. 

July 2. The 200 heaters, rollers and puddlers employed at the 
Hulmbacher Forge and Rolling Mills at St. Louis, Mo., quit work 
Thursday night and yesterday the plant was temporarily shut 
down. The mill people refused to sign the scale of wages as in 
force last year, and claim that to continue paying at the same 
price would mean that no profit would ever come out of their 
capital invested. 

July 12. The Elm City Brewing Company's plant at New 
Haven, Conn., now lies dormant, and A. F. Schneider, of the com- 
pany, says that there is no chance of the concern starting up 
while the McKinley bill is in force. It is dependent upon Cana- 
diaii barley, and the price of this grain is now 50 per cent, higher 
than before the passage of the bill. 



90 TBUSTS AIDED BY THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 



TRUSTS AIDED BY THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 

By retaining the duty of 75 cents a ton on bituminous it caused 
the formation of the ANTHRACITE COAL TRUST, which has 
advanced prices on that most necessary article — coal. 

It (McKinley Tariff) retained the already almost prohibitive 
rate of 6-10 cents per pound on barbed wire and the BARBED 
WIRE TRUST was formed January 1, 1891. 

The BOOT AND SHOE COMBINE was materially strengthened 
by the protective duty of 25 per cent, on boots and shoes. 

It raised the tariff on brooms to 40 per cent, and the BROOM 
TRUST formed in November, 1891, has since that time raised 
prices 75 cents per dozen. 

"By the outrageous increase of the duty on pearl buttons to 
nearly 400 per cent, the BUTTON TRUST has been encouraged to 
plunder the American people." (The Tariff Reform.) 

The tariff on cartridges was increased to 45 per cent, and the 
CARTRIDGE TRUST has, since November, 1890, sold at prices 
nearly 100 per cent, higher than those of 1888, hut they have not 
ceased to sell to foreigners a'bout 40 per cent, cheaper than to 
Americans. 

The CELLULOID TRUST is protected by a 20 per cent, duty and 
on January 16, 1891, threw seven hundred men out of employment 
by shutting down one of its works. 

THE COPPER INGOT and COPPER SHEET TRUST are both 
protected by the McKinley Tariff and have proved very disastrous 
to the copper industries of the country. 

As there has never been any imports of cottonseed oil, there 
was no excuse for the retention in the McKinley bill of any duty, 
but its effect is to protect the COTTONSEED OIL TRUST against 
the reimportation of its own products, if it chooses to sell to 
foreigners at a price much lower than to Americans. 

The COTTON THREAD TRUST took prompt advantage of the 
McKinley act. 

After the increased duty on terne plates was granted by the 
McKinley act, two associations of manufacturers united to form 
the GALVANIZED IRON AND STEEL TRUST, and prices have 
risen. 

The LEATHER TRUST was formed under this tariff. 

THE HARROW as well as THE HARVESTER TRUST both sell 
to foreigners cheaper than to Americans. ^ 

The prohibitive duties upon white lead was retained in the 
interest of the LEAD TRUST, which has made its prices still 
higher, while it exports its surplus to Canada and other countries, 
selling there at a heavy discount. 

The duty on matches resulted in the formation of the MATCH 
TRUST, which has closed down factories, thrown hundreds of 
people out of employment and advanced the price of matches 50 
per cent, per gross. 

A duty of 15 per cent, was sufficient to build up the great PAPER 
BAG TRUST, yet Mr. McKinley generously increased the duty to 
25 per cent. 



TRU8T8 AIDED BY THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 91 

The PLATE GLASS TRUST was protected by a duty of 100 
|per cent., and although the cost of manufacture steadily declined, 
the American consumer paid the TRUST ten million dollars in 
\one year for plate glass more than it could he purchased abroad. 

The POCKET CUTLERY TRUST, THE POWDER TRUST, and 
the WOOD PULP TRUST were all helped by the McKinley Tariff. 

The SALT TRUST was born, and the price of salt advanced all 
along the line, just as soon as the McKinley act kept the duty on 
salt. 

The SASH, DOOR AND BLIND TRUST was protected by a 
duty of 35 per cent. 

The SCHOOL BOOK TRUST robs every parent who sends a 
child to school and was "protected" by a duty of 25 per cent. 

The SMELTERS TRUST was formed immediately after the 
election of Harrison, The McKinley act insured its life by the 
retention in the tariff .of the duty of 2 cents per pound in pigs 
and bars. 

The SOAP TRUST was helped along by a duty of from 20 to 40 
per cent. 

The great STARCH AND DEXTRINE TRUST had its perman- 
ency assured by the McKinley tariff, and after this advanced its 
price of lump starch $20 per ton. 

The duty on steel rails was prohibitory, thereby aiding the 
STEEL RAIL TRUST. 

The McKinley act abolished the duty on raw sugar, thus giving 
the SUGAR TRUST free raw materials, and then left it protection 
of half cent per pound on refined sugar. 

The TINNED PLATE TRUST also obtained "protection" under 
this act. 

The TRUNK TRUST was an outgrowth of the McKinley Tariff. 

Duties on umbrellas were increased 55 per cent, and the 
UMBRELLA TRUST was formed very shortly thereafter. 

The tariff of 25 per cent, on watches was retained and the 
WATCH TRUST continues to charge Americans 25 per cent, more 
than foreigners. 

The duties on window glass, averaging about 100 per cent, 
were retained, and enabled the WINDOW GLASS TRUST to live 
and prosper. 

It was not three months after the McKinley bill was passed 
before the WIRE TRUST had been perfected, the output decreased, 
numbers of employees discharged, the wages of others reduced 
20 per cent, and the price of wire increased. 

The Tariff increased the duty on screws likely to be imported, 
and the WOOD SCREW TRUST makes enormous profits, while 
selling over 30 per cent, cheaper to foreigners. 

The YELLOW PINE TRUST was formed after the McKinley 
act went into effect and advanced prices. 

The McKinley Act made possible the GLUCOSE TRUST. 

SENATOR HALE ON THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 

Senator Hale, January 28, 1892, said: 

Senator Hale: "I do not hesitate, Mr. President, in stating here 
and now, as the result of my observation, that I firmly believe that 
section 3 of the McKinley bill, which contains the reciprocity feature, 



92 TRUSTS AIDED BY THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 

is the part of the measure which has floated the whole act, and which 
kept it from being swamped by the starm which, without reason, 
broke upon it from the day of its passage. The great merits of other 
parts of the McKinley bill might have sunk under a sea of obloqny 
and would never have been seen and appreciated if the reciprocity 
clause had not kept the whole structure from going down." (Record 
Vol. 23, p. 621, 52d Con., 1st Sess.) 

McKINLEY TARIFF A FAILURE— PRODUCER OF DEFICITS 
AND PANICS. 

The Harrison administration began March 4, 1889 — the Mc- 
Kinley Tariff was in operation from October 6, 1890, to August 29, 
1894 — 47 months. The Cleveland administration operated eigh- 
teen months under this tariff — from March 4, 1893, to the enact- 
ment of the Wilson Tariff Act, August 28, 1894. The McKinley 
Tariff produced a deficit in the second month of its existence 
(November, 1890); 11 others occurred before Cleveland was nom- 
inated (June, 1892) ; that is, twelve deficits all told out of a total 
of twenty months. Moreover, it produced six deficits in 6 months 
thereafter and before Cleveland was inaugurated (March, 1893), 
and 13 monthly deficits after his inauguration, causing a total 
deficit of over $80,000,000 for the 47 months. There was a deficit 
of over $9,000,000 before Cleveland's nomination and $4,000,000 and 
over between Ms nomination and his inauguration — all under the 
McKinley Tariff. 

The incontrovertibility of these statements is shown by a table 
prepared by and printed in a speech of Hon. John W. Gaines, and 
published in the Congressional Record June 20, 1906, pp 9044- 
9045, and given herewith: 

Operation of the Treasury Department under the McKinley tariff act of 
Octoter 6, 1890, repealed hy the Wilson tariff act of August 28, 1894, 
covering a period of forty-seven months. 

BEFORE CLEVELAND'S NOMINATION. 

Month. Receipts. Expenditures. 

1 October. 1890 a ^. . $40,215,894.29 $38,036,664.24 

2 November, 1890 28,986,124.71 b42,570,022.40 

3 December, 1890 31,370,089.87 21,888,550.00 

4 January, 1891 37,055,973.25 23,981,309.07 

5 February, 1891 29,611,318.02 631,725,009.86 

6 March, 1891 29,418,330.46 631,502,941.60 

7 April, 1891 26,045,831.64 25,331,194.06 

8 May, 1891 27,417,425.94 629,772,085.15 

9 June, 1891 31,721,749.51 635,902,971.96 

10 July, 1891 34,300,344.68 639,719,651.13 

11 August, 1891 28,884,851.10 20,738.020.95 

12 September, 1891 28,001,247.25 23,934,801.19 

13 October, 1891 28,500,552.21 631,872,268.02 

14 November, 1891 26,917,162.72 627.911,002.30 

15 December, 1891 27,932,985.73 631,821,889.67 

16 January, 1892 30,542,728.60 635,663,522.60 

17 February, 1892 30,755,904.57 27,482.059.13 

18 March, 3 892 30,048,806.33 28,989,589.79 

19 April, 1892 27,388,354.04 631.098,076.97 

20 May, 1892 28,498,798.45 632,755,478.39 

Total $603,674,42.3.37 $612,697,108.48 

Deficit for 20 months, $9,022,685.11. 



i 



TRUSTS AIDED BY THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 93 



AFTER CLEVELAND'S NOMINATION. 

Month. Receipts. Expenditures. 

21 June, 1892c $31,219,117.98 $28,940,634.25 

22 July, 1892 34,571,356.25 637,249,407.04 

»3 August, 1892 34,032,928.53 32,080,779.53 

24 September, 1892 31,841,278.66 28,917,798.74 

25 October, 1892 31,836,138.21 631,881,250.18 

26 November, 1892(1 28,794,645.38 630,748,882.78 

27 December, 1892 33,212,911.10 634,277,123.58 

28 January, 1893 35,209,972.31 639,253,381.68 

29 February, 1893 30,009,892.23 631,677,454.00 

Total $290,728,240.65 $295,026,711.78 

Deficit for 9 months, $4,298,471.13. 

AFTER CLEVELAND'S INAUGURATION. 

Month. Receipts. Expenditures. 

30 March, 1893e $34,437,844.99 $32,372,997.73 

31 April, 1893 28,599,942.29 633,771,365.73 

32 "May, 1893 . 30,971,497.64 30.872,502.79 

33 June, 1893 30,983,921.85 29,266,451.30 

34 July, 1893 30,905,776.19 639,675,888.60 

35 August, 1893 23,890,885.30 633,305,228.48 

36 September, 1893 24,582,756.10 625,478,010.17 

37 October, 1893 24,553,394.97 629,588,792.34 

38 November, 1893 23,979,400.81 631,302,026.41 

39, December, 1893 22,312,027.00 6.30,058,260.51 

40 January, 1894 24,082,738.97 631,309,669.59 

41 February, 1894 22,269,299.46 626,725,373.84 

42 March, 1894 24,842,797.79 631,137,560.24 

48 April, 1894 22,692,364.26 632,072,836.42 

44 May, 1894 23.066,994.32 629,779,140.92 

45 June, 1894 26,485,925.72 25.557,021.23 

46 July, 1894 34,809,339.75 636,648.582.53 

47 August, 1894f 40,417,605.81 31,656,636.85 

Total $1,388,287,167.24 $1,468,302,165.94 

1,388,287,167.24 

Total deficit for 47 months $80,014,998.70 

a McKinley Act took effect October 6, 1890. 

6 Deficit. 

G Cleveland nominated June 21, 1892. 

d Cleveland elected. 

e Cleveland inaugurated. 

f Wilson tariff took effect August 28, 1894. 

This table is based upon the "Comparative Statement of Ex- 
renditures and Receipts of the United States," which (see appen- 
dices, p. 252) issued monthly by the Treasury Department, and is 
printed in the Record of June 20, 1906, pp. 9047 to 9051, in so far 
as it covers the operations of the Treasury under the McKinley 
Tariff, from and including Octoder, 1890, down to and including 
Fedruary, 1893 — four days before the second inauguration of Mr. 
Cleveland. 

In the face of these official figures, the Republicans charge 

That the first deficit under the McKinley Tariff was November, 
1892 (WHEN IN FACT IT FIRST OCCURRED NOVEMBER, 1890, 
as shown above) ; that this deficit and all others under the McKinley 
Tariff were caused by the election of Mr. Cleveland and a Demo- 
cratic Congress in Novemler, 1892; and that their election caused 
the panic of 1893, when, in truth, the Treasury was VIRTUALLY 
BANKRUPT LONG BEFORE THE NOMINATION, ELECTION 
OR INAUGURATION March, 1893, of Mr. Cleveland. 

SECRETARY FOSTER BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE, 
FEBRUARY 25, 1893. 

Mr. Foster testified before the Ways and Means Committee on 
the condition of the Treasury. His testimony is fully reported in 
House Report No. 2,621, Fifty-second Congress, 2nd Session. He 



94 TRUSTS AIDED BY THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 

then acknowledged that he had changed his predecessor's systeml 
of bookkeeping by including as "available" cash subsidiary coin] 
(then about $9,000,000), and Federal Deposits in National Banks 
(then about $10,00^,000), which two items "my predecessors," 
said he, has treated as "unavailable" cash. Continuing, he said: 

"If I eliminated those items noio (February 25th, 1893), there 
would be a showing of deficit," 

He further said that unlike his "predecessors" he had "little 
money and wanted to show that it was as large as possible," 
hence "I adopted" this new system. He further confessed that 
he had "held up" the payment of "requisitions" on the Treasury 
for "a day or two until we got in better shape," * * * "when 
someone would say that the Treasury was bankrupt and all that 
sort of thing." 

"I merely make this explanation so you may know what the situa 

tion has been." * * * 

"I should say that the next fiscal year would show a deficit." 

"I think an annual increase of $50,000,000 would make the Treasury 

easy, and if I was going to manage it I would want to have it that 

way." 

He urged raising the Gold Reserve from $100,000,000 to $125,- 
000,000 because "by the act of July 14, 1890 (Sherman Silver 
Law), you have created an additional liability upon the gold in 
the Treasury of $130,000,000." 

"Now, I want to state to you these estimates are based upon con- 
ditions existing prior to the late election." 

Mr. Foster had made these same recommendations in his an- 
nual report three months before — December 5, 1892 — and then 
also said: 

"The estimated receipts are based upon conditions prevailing prior 
to the late election." 

"The late election" to which he alludes was the election of Mr. 
Cleveland and a Democratic Congress, November, 1892. 

Here we have Mr. Foster confessing that a deficit would ap- 
pear — "now" — February 25, 1893 — if he did not count as "avail- 
able" cash the hitherto "unavailable" cash, that is, SUBSIDIARY 
COIN (limited tender) AND FEDERAL DEPOSITS IN NA- 
TIONAL BANKS, the two items amounting then, as he said, to 
about $19,000,000. Furthermore, he confessed that "the next 
fiscal year would show a deficits' 

Moreover, the Committee reported that there would be a deficit: 

"* * * at the end of the ensuing fiscal year * * * to from 
$30,000,000 to $40,000,000. In these calculations NO ACCOUNT 
WHATEVER has been taken of the requirements of the Sinking 
Fund." 

"Secretary Foster stated in his opinion that the annual receipts 
of the government should AT ONCE be increased and that his opinion 
there would be a deficit at the end of the fiscal year 1894; that the 
annual revenue should be increased $50,000,00J} * * * to meet 



TRUSTS AIDED BY THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 95 



the conditions to which reference has been made in his report, and 
also for the purpose of increasing the Gold Reserve to the extent 
of $25,000,000." . (H. R. Report, 52d Congress, Second Session, 2651.) 

We quote the following testimony of Secretary Foster before 
the House Committee February 25, 1893. 

Secretary Foster — "Now, I want to say to you these estimates are 
based upon conditions existing prior to the late election." 

Mr. Turner — "Taking into consideration all these conditions which 
you anticipate, what, in your judgment, would be a fair conjecture 
of the condition of the Treasury at the end of the next fiscal year ?" 

Secretary Foster — "I should say the next fiscal yeae would 

SHOW A DEFICIT." 

Mr. Turner — "Can you give an approximate estimate, according to 
all the data accessible to you ?" 

Secretary Foster — "I will only say this, that if I was to have the 
management of the Treasury, I should insist upon an increase of 
REVENUE to the extent of $50,000,000." 

Mr. Turner — "In order to meet those conditions which you antici-' 
pate ?" 

Secretary Foster — "Not only those conditions, but the gold condi- 
tions as well." 

Mr. Wilson — "Did I understand you to express a general opinion a 
while ago that, in addition to the present sources of revenue, that 
the revenues of the Treasury Department ought to be advanced 
$50,000,000 more a year ?" 

Secretary Foster — "Yes, sir." 

Mr. McMillin — <"Would you make that for one year or a permanent 
increase of revenue ?" 

Secretary Foster — "As things are going now, a permanent revenue, 
for two reasons. I would increase the gold reserve at least $25,000,000 
if I had the money to do it with." 

Mr. Turner — "But your answer just now seemed to contemplate an 
annual increase." 

Secretary Foster— w"I think an annual increase of $50,000,000 would 
make the Treasury easy, and if I were going to manage it I would 
want to have it." (H. R. Report, 2651, 52d Congress, 2d filed March 
3, 1893.) 

REQUISITIONS HELD UP BY FOSTER. 

Mr. Foster — "Possibly, sometimes, when five or six or seven mil- 
lions of requisitions would come in in a day, for which he would have 
to pay gold if all were paid in a day, I probably have suggested to 
Mr. MacLennan that he had better wait a day or two until we got 
in a better shape, because I did not want to pay out gold for current 
liabilities." 

"PADDLED ALONG," PAYING UNCLE SAM'S DEBTS. 

Mr. Foster — "I merely make this explanation so you may know 
what the situation has heen. This has not been for the want of 
money. Once in a while, when large requisitions come in and pile 
up together, I do not want to pay them, because I would have to pay 
them in gold, and so we would paddle along for a day or two, when 
some one would say the Treasury was bankrupt and all that sort cf 
thing." 

Mr. McMillin — "Certain funds which were heretofore held by the 
Treasury, and not treated as available balances in the Treasury, 
have been treated in more recent reports as available balances in 
the Treasury, and I want to find out what the aggregate of that is." 

Mr. Miller — ^"The $54,000,000 for redemption of national bank notei 
is the only fund that has gone into the cash." 



96 TRUSTS AIDED BY THE McEINLEY TARIFF. 

Mr. Turner — "Do you, in making that request want it to show 
how the fund for redeeming national bank notes was carried in the 
former statement ?" 

Mr. McMillin— "Yes, sir." 

Mr. Miller — "That was a separate account. * * * That was 
not in the cash." 

NEW SYSTEM OF COUNTING THE CASH "I ADOPTED," 
SAID MR. FOSTER. 

Mr. Wilson — "Then in regard to the subsidiary coin, there has been 
some change made." 

Secretary Foster — ^"We count that as money. It has gotten down 
to $9,000,000, or will when the appropriation for the Columbian Ex- 
position is made." 

Mr. McMillin — "I would like to have that included also." 

Secretary Foster — "We will show you how it is carried on previous 
statements, and how it is on the one I adopted." 

Mr. Wilson — "What items in the Treasury are now covered in as 
available cash which were hitherto set apart as not under that 
heaaing ?" 

Secretary Foster — "All right. Under Mr. Manning the bank de- 
posits were not considered as money in the Treasury. Subsidiary 
coin was not, but if I eliminated those items now there would be a 
showing of deficit." 

Mr. Payne — "I understand you are keeping books according to law, 
and that this statement they use to make was not according to law." 

Secretary Foster — "I do not want to say that; I do no want to say 
that in regard to my predecessors." 

Mr. Wilson — "As I understand, Mr. Payne, according to law means 
when I get pretty hard pressed I can take trust funds and pass them 
to my account, and take some of my obligations I have got on hand 
for sale and count them as sold." 

Secretary Foster — "It is not that; but the changes in the keeping 
of the statement are simply this : There are two items, one of money in 
banks and the other subsidiary coin, which were eliminated from the 
cash, and were not called cash. Now, I got to a point where if I did 
not include them in my cash my statement would show a deficit. I 
thought they were cash, I can take every dollar out of these banks 
in a minute, and I believe I have reduced the deposit to about 
$10,000,000." 



THE REAL 8IONIFIGANGE OF FOS^TER'S PLAN. 97 



THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FOSTER'S PLAN. 

SHERMAN SILVER LAW CONDEMNED BY MR. FOSTER. 

Tlie real significance of these statements is what the Secretary at the 
time being wants to show. My predecessors had a great deal of 
money, and they wanted to show it was as small as possible. I had 
little money and wanted to show it was as large as possible, and I did 
just exactly what Brother Springer would have done if you had been 
in my place. There ivas no juggling of figures at all. 

Mr. Payne — ''iTou went to a point where if you continued the old 
statement it would have showed a deficit, but you still had plenty of 
money in the Treasvuy for all needs?" 

Secretary Foster — "Certainly." 

Mr. Payne — "The Treasury was easy at that time ?" 

Secretary Foster — "Yes. The difficulty with the Treasury has not 
been any lack of money. It oiight to have more money, but by the act 
of July 14, 1890 (Sherman silver act), you have created an additional 
liability upon the gold in the Treasury of $130,000,000. That $100,- 
000,000 was set apart as a redemption fund for $340,000,000, and it 
is now nearly $500,000,000." 

Mr. McMillin — "Four hundred and seventy-six million dollars, I be- 
lieve." 

McKINLEY TARIFF AND SHERMAN LAWS FAILED TO 

MEET THE "NATURAL" DEMANDS OF THE PEOPLE. 

"SHRINKAGE OF THE BALANCE OF TRADE." 

Secretary Foster — "Now, there is a demand for this gold from 
abroad, and the truth is we owe the money and it is natural. My best 
information is that our securities are not coming back here; loe are 
shipping securities abroad, but when you take into account the shrink- 
age of tlie balance of trade as shown upon the customhouse books com- 
pared with former years, and then deduct from that tlie balance of 
what our people spend abroad, say $120,000,000; $30,000,000 balance 
freight; $25,000,000, undervaluations (and I think it is probable we 
are cheated that much) ; $12,000,000 servant-girl funds sent abroad 
(the balance on postal money orders is $12,000,000 against us) ; the 
Chinese send what mone}^ they have back to China ; most of the money 
of the Italians goes back; 75,000 American citizens go abroad every 
year in the steerage who spend more or less money; all of these ele- 
ments must be considered in determining the balance of trade. When 
you take all these elements into account you will find we owe money 
abroad." 

"Seeing these things, the Secretary felt that we should keep all the 
money we could in gold. About $25,000,000 was the limit he could pay 
for. He had no trouble to get gold if he had the money to get it with." 

HELD UP PAYMENT OF REQUISITIONS ON TREASURY. 

"Possibly, sometimes, when five or six or seven millions of requisi- 
tions v>'ould come in in a day, for which he would have to pay gold if 
all were paid in a day, I probably have suggested to Mr. MacLennan 
that he had better w^ait a day or two until we got in a better shape, 
because I did not want to pay out gold for current liabilities. 

"I knew just as well as I was living that this thing was going to 
come, ana I wanted to be as strong as I possibly could." 

"I MADE AS GOOD A STATEMENT IN MY REPORT AS I 

COULD." 

"So you see in my report I made as good a statement as I could of 
our condition, and asked you to give the Treasury more money, so this 
gold reserve might be incr^eased. Now, since $21,000,000 of this gold 



98 THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FOSTER'S PLAN. 

has gone and I have but $4^000,000 left, I can pay any requisitions 
which come in promptly, because I have currency in the place of 
gold." 

WHAT THE SITUATION HAS BEEN, "PADDLED ALONG." 

"I merely make this explanation so you may know what the situation 
has teen. This has not been for the want of money. Once in a while, 
when large requisitions come in and pile up together, I do not want to 
pay them, because I would have to pay them in gold, and so we would 
paddle along for a day or two, when some one would say the Treasury 
was bankrupt and all that sort of thing. Now, I commenced with 
$25,000,000 in gold in the Treasury when gold exports commenced in 
December; $35,000,000 have gone out of the country and we have 
$4,000,000 left. 

Now, more gold is going, I have no doubt. If the Secretary could 
have had $50,000,000 more money on the 1st of December he could 
have increased the gold to $150,000,000 and kept his reserve at about 
$125,000,000, but not having the money, he could not do it." 

The Minority Report, signed by the great leaders of the House, 
Mr. Payne (New York), Mr. Dalzell, Mr. Thomas D. Reed, Mr. 
Hopkins, Mr. Burrows, in part, said: 

REPUBLICAN MINORITY CONFESS. 

"On the basis of the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, it 
would seem that tlie amount of the surplus or deficiency would be 
very small." 

• 
"Small" — but it would be — and was over $69,803,260, 

The Report of the Majority, upon the testimony of Mr. Foster 

and several others, was, in part, as follows: 

Majority Report. 
DEFICIT OF $30,000,000 TO $40,000,000. 

Under the most careful estimates that can now be made it is ap- 
parent that at the end of the ensuing fiscal year there will be a deficit 
amounting to from $30,000,000 to $40,000,000. In these calculations 
no account whatever has been taken of the requirements of the sinking 
fund. 

In the statement above referred to — No. 6 — it will be seen that the 
requirements of the sinking fund were not met during the past fiscal 
year and no eff"ort has been made to meet such requirements during the 
current fiscal year, nor can any of its requirements be observed during 
the ensuing fiscal year unless there is a large increase in the revenues 
of the Government. 

According to Secretary Foster's statement, above referred to, the 
balance due the sinking fund June 30, 1892, was $11,307,825.36 and 
the requirements of the sinking fund for the fiscal year 1893 were 
estimated at $48,693,000, showing that at the end of the fiscal year 
1893 there will be due the sinking fund $60,000,000. The statement 
further shows that at the end of the next fiscal year there will be due 
the sinking fund a little over $100,000,000. 

It appears from these statements that the Secretary of the Treasury 
has charged against the sinking fund the amount of $16,000,000 paid 
for the redemption of national-bank notes which have gone into 
liquidation. 

Your committee do not concede that the redemption of national-bank 
notes is a payment of a national debt as contemplated by the sinking- 
fund law, and that such payments for the redemption of national-bank 
notes under the act of July 14, 1890, should be made out of the current 
receipts in the Treasury. If this amount is added to the requirements 
of the sinking fund, it will show $116,000,000 due that fund on the 
30th of June, 1894. 



RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. 99 

DEFICIT CONFESSED BY FOSTER. 

Secretary Foster stated that in his opinion the annual receipts of the 
Government should be at once increased. He also stated that in his 
opinion there would be a deficit at the end of the fiscal year 1894, and 
said that if he had the management of the Treasury in the future he 
should insist upon an increase of the annual revenue to the extent of 
$50,000,000. This increase, he stated, should be made to meet the con- 
ditions to which reference has been made in this report, and also for 
the purpose of increasing to the extent of $25,000,000 the gold-reserve 
fund of $100,000,000, which increase he earnestly recommended. (H. 
R. Report, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., 2651, March 3, 1893.) 

Mr. Foster, in his report December 5, 1892, said: 



RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. 

FISCAL YEAR, 1892. 

"The revenues of the Government from all sources for the fiscal 
year ended June 30, 1892, were $425,868,260.22; expenditures, $415,- 
953,806.56, leaving a surplus of $9,914,453.66. To this sum was 
added $16,232,721.00, deposited in the Treasury under the Act of 
July 14, 1890, for the redemption ^f national bank notes. 

A.S compared with the fiscal year 1891, the receipts for 1892 have 
fallen off $32,675,972.81. There was a decrease of $10,349,- 
354.16 in the ordinary expenditures." 

FISCAL YEAR, 1893. 

"For the present year the revenues are estimated as follows: Total 
estimated revenues, $463,336,350.44. The expenditures for the same" 
period are estimated as follows: Total estimated expenditures, $461,- 
336,350.44, leaving an estimated surplus for the year of $2,000,000.00." 

"The following is a statement of the probable condition of the 
Treasury at the close of the present fiscal year, June 30, 1893: 
Cash in the Treasury July 1, 1892, including gold 

reserve ' $126,692,377.03 

Surplus for year, as above 2,000,000 . 00 

Deposits during the year for redemption of national 

bank notes 2,500,000 . 00 

Total amount available $131,192,377 . 03 

Less — 

Redemption of national bank notes dur- 
ing the year $9,500,000 . 00 

Redemption of bonds, interest notes and 

fractional currency during the year.. 700,000.00 

$10,200,000.00 

Cash balance available, June 30, 1893 $120,992,377 .03 



100 RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. 



FISCAL YEAR, 1894. 

"It is estimated that the revenue of the Government 
for the fiscal year 1894 will be on basis named 
t»elow $490,121,365.38 

Total estimated appropriations, exclusive of sinking 

FUND 457,261,335.33 

Or an estimated surplus of 32,860,030.05 

To which add cash balance above Gold Keserve, June 

30, 1893 20,992,377.03 

Making an estimated balance of 53,852,407.08 

From which deduct accrued and accruing obligations, 

estimated as follows 6,000,000.00 

i 

Leaving 47,852,407.08 

AGAINST WHICH THERE WILL REMAIN ON JUNE 30, 1893, 
UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF CONTINUING APPROPRIA- 
TIONS FOR HEAVY ORDNANCE, RIVERS AND HARBORS, 
INCREASE TO THE NAVY AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AMOUNT- 
ING TO $44,000,000. 

"NO ACCOUNT IS MADE IN THE FOREGOING OF THE RE- 
QUIREMENTS OF THE SINKING FUND FOR 1894, AMOUNT-. 
ING TO $48,600,000, BEYOND THE REDEMPTION OF PAST DUE 
BONDS FRACTIONAL CURRENCY AND NATIONAL BANK 
NOTES ESTIMATED AT $5,000,000." 

ANTE ELECTION ESTUVTATES— THESE WERE. 

"The estimated receipts are based upon conditions prevailing pt-'ior 
to the late election." (Secy. Foster's Report, Dec. 5, 1892, p. 24.) 

NEEDED "CASH" AND GOLD. 

"One of the embarrassments to the Treasury, in the opinion of the 
Secretary, is the inability, with the limited amount of cash on hand, 
above the $100,000,000 reserve to keep up a sufficient gold supply. 
When the demand comes for the exportation of gold the Treasury 
is called upon to furnish it. 

If this demand should prove to he as large the coming year as it 
has been for the past tioo years, gold in the Treasury would he dimin- 
ished to or beloiu the reserve line." 

"In view, therefore, of these increasing liabilities, the Reserve in 

the Treasury should be increased to the extent at least 

of 20 per cent, of the amount of the Treasury Notes issued and to be 
issued under the Act of July 14th, 1890 — Sherman law." 

He then recommended that: 

MORE REVENUE AND GOLD NEEDED— SAYS SECRETARY 

FOSTER. 

"I think the revenue should be so increased as to enable the 
Treasury Department to maintain a gold reserve of not less than 
$125,000,000.00, and to maintain a comfortable working balance in 
the Treasury." (Treas. Report, Dec. 5, 1892, p. 29.) 

It is very plain if Mr. Foster had literally said, in his report, 
December 5, 1892, above quoted, "that there would be a deficit 
during the next fiscal year," he would have said no more than 
what his report actually shows. When the House Committee, 
three months later, quizzed him on the subject, he confessed that 
there would be a deficit "the next fiscal year" — 1894. 



RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES, 101 



ANNUAL REPORT, 1890, BY WINDOM. 

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury (Windom), Decem- 
ber 1, 1890, says: 

"The loss of precious metal by net export, during the year was: 
gold $4,253,057; silver $8,545,455." 

The Sherman and McKinley laws took effect in the summer of 
1890. 

MOVEMENT OF GOLD UNDER THE McKINLEY AND SHER- 
MAN LAWS, MR. FOSTER'S ADMINISTRATION. 

In his first annual report, dated December 7, 1891, Mr. Foster 
said: 

"The loss of gold by net (italics his) export during the fiscal year 
was $67,946,768. 

"The loss of gold by exports was materially larger during the last 
fiscal year than in any recent years. The heavy movement commenced 
in February, 1891, and did not cease until the close of July. The 
total amount exported from the port of New York during this period 
was $70,223,494.31. 

"It is gratifying to report that a return movement of gold is well 
under way, which has aggregated since the first of July, at the port 
of New York alone, $27,854,000. 

"In the report of the Director of the Mint will be found an article 
treating in detail of the movement of gold of the United States, and 
pointing out some of the causes which are believed to have operated 
to produce the same." 

On this subject, November 1, 1892, the mint director, Mr. Leech, 
in part, said: 

REMARKABLE EXPORTS OF GOLD. 

"In the Summer of 1890, a movement of gold from this country 
occurred, which, while by no means as serious in amount as its 
predecessor, was someiohat remarJcahle as a monetary transaction, 
considering the low rate of sight sterling exchange which obtained 
during the period. 

"This movement aggregated in less than two months the sum of 
$15,672,982." 

SERIOUS TROUBLE. 

"In February of the present year (1891) another movement of gold 
to Europe commenced, which did not cease until the close of July 
.... caused by far the most serious loss of gold which this country has 
sustained for many years. The total amount exported from the port 
of New York was $70,223,494.31. 

The heavy losses incurred by European capitalists in South 
American countries, the resulting financial disturbances and uneasi- 
ness, etc., not only greatly restricted this credit, but led to a con- 
tinuous pressure, more or less strong, for gold to strengthen the 
reserves of the banks in England, France and Germany. 

Russia, at the same time, withdrew from the depositories of Western 
Europe large quantities of gold, thus adding greatly to the drain and 
increasing the pressure for the import of gold from the United States, 
this country being the only outside port from which gold in large 
amounts could be readily drawn. 



102 RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. 

It is a well known fact that the Bank of England paid a premium 
for American gold coin, and increased that premium from time to 
time as the financial crisis grew more threatening." 

BALANCE OF TRADE AGAINST US. 

"The balance of trade, for these reasons, being against us, and the 
pressing need for gold in London, Paris and Berlin, I count very 
largely for the heavy export of gold during these five months." 

ANNUAL REPORT, DECEMBER, 1892. 
In his report, issued February 5, 1892, Secretary Foster said: 

"The net loss of gold by exports during the fiscal year was only 
$142,654 against a loss in the preceding fiscal year of $67,946,768." 

MINT REPORT, 1892. 

The mint director, Mr. Leech, in his report, November 1, 1892, 
after repeating the causes of our export loss of gold, recited in 
his report for 1891 as above given, gave two additional reasons 
for this gold movement to wit: 

(1) "The Austrian Government has been making strenuous 
exertions during the last year to obtain sufficient gold for a strong 
basis in establishing a gold standard for its currency." 

ONE GREAT CAUSE. 

(2) "One great cause of continued large shipment of gold is, as 
stated by all exchanges and financial writers, the distrust of the 
United States securities raised in the minds of European investors 
by the large and increasing preponderance of silver over gold in the 
reserve held for the redemption of our paper currency." 

Thus we see Mr. Foster, in effect, condemns 'both the Sherman 
and the McKinley tariff laws while Mr. Leech condemns the 
Sherman law as causing our troubles. Whether both or either 
law caused us to lose our gold, a deficit in the treasury, or the 
panic of 1893, or all three, the fact remains that they were both 
Republican laws operating under a Republican administration, 
and the Democrats had voted against their enactment and after- 
wards denounced as a "cowardly makeshift," partially repealed, 
the Sherman law November 1, 1893, and later repealed the 
McKinley tariff. 

In 1890, under the high protective tariff of 1883 and its 
successor, the McKinley tariff, and an overflowing treasury. 
Secretary Windom, to avoid a panic as he said, expended in buying 
bonds all the available money in the treasury, except the national 
bank redemption fund of $54,000,000. The silver coin and bank 
doposits he said were unavailable assets. 

When the Sherman and McKinley laws began operations under 
a Republican administration, our gold reserve was intact, our 
treasury overflowing, but "panic and disaster" threatened, and 
was partially averted by Mr. Windom buying bonds and using 
the bank redemption fund as his only actual surplus, but in 
two years, under the same administration and laws, our net gold 



CASH TURNED OVER. 103 



exports are alarming, the treasury is empty, the gold reserve in 
danger, legal tenders are being exchanged in New York for gold 
to replenish the reserve, and the panic of 1890 is in full bloom in 
1892 and 1893. 

In March, 1889, the Cleveland administration turned over to 
the Harrison administration, exclusive of the $100,000,000 gold 
reserve, over $230,000,000, while the Harrison administration, 
four years thereafter, turned over to the Cleveland administra- 
tion, exclusive of the gold reserve, less than $63,000,000, the net 
balance in the treasury of about $24,000,000 being made up of 
small coins, federal deposits in the banks, and the balance of 
the national bank redemption fund, which, during this adminis- 
tration had been turned into the treasury as so much cash, 
amounting by this time in gross to at least $70,000,000. 

The United States "Treasury Department," "July 1, 1904," 
issued a "Circular No. 72," which shows the money paid over by 
the two administrations as follows: 



CASH TURNED OVER. 

END OF FIRST CLEVELAND ADMINISTRATION. 

CONDITION OF THE TREASURY MARCH 1, 1889, MARCH 1, 
1893, MARCH 1, 1897. 

"On the 1st day of March, 1889, the beginning of President Har- 
rison's Administration, t^he available fun"as in the Treasury, ex- 
clusive of the $100,000,000 gold reserve, were as follows: 

Agency account $64,502,445.02 

Net balance in Teeasury 165,846,471.10 

Total $230,348,916.12 

CASH TURNED OVER BY THE HARRISON 
ADMINISTRATION. 

In addition to the ordinary revenues received during President 
Harrison's Administration, there was covered into the Treasury by 
direction of the act of Congress of July 14, 1890, $54,207,975.75, 
which had been held in trust under the law as a fund for the re- 
demption of national bank notes; and such notes are now redeemed, 
upon presentation, from the general cash in the Treasury. 

On the 1st day of March, 1893, the available funds in the Treasury, 
exclusive of the $100,000,000 gold reserve, were as follows: 

Agency account $38,365,832.90 

Net balance in Treasury 24,084,742.28 

Total $62,450,575.18" 



104 GASH TURNED OVER. 

SMALL SILVER COIN AND BANK DEPOSITS ON HAND 
MARCH 1, 1893. 

The amount of national bank redemption funds on hand March 
1, 1893, was $22,272,061, of fractional silver $10,971,875; the two 
items amounting to $33,243,936. Deduct these sums from the 
balance stated March 1, 1893, $24,084,742.28 and there was then a 
real deficiency of $9,159,193.72. And if we deduct the $10,000,000 
bank deposits, the deficiency is increased that much more, or 
to $19,159,193.72. 

To be able to even turn over the $100,000,000 gold reserve 
intact, Mr. Foster exchanged legal tenders from the treasury for 
gold and was in New York in the early part of 1893 for that 
purpose. In this way, he secured from $6,000,000 to $8,000,000 
in gold and with this, and that gold which came into the Treasury 
in the usual way, he "paddled along" until the end of his term, 
and turned over to Mr. Carlisle on the day he took actual charge 
of the Treasury, March 7, 1893, only "$983,410 in excess of the 
lawful reserve." 

Mr. Carlisle, December 19, 1893, in his annual report, said: 

"The amount of free gold in the Treasury on the Tth of March, 
1893, was $100,982,410, or $983,410 in excess of the lawful reserve." 

In a speech delivered in 1895 in Ohio,* Mr. Foster said: 

"On the fourth of March, 1893, we turned over to the new admin- 
istration nearly $125,000,000 in cash, more than $100,000,000 was in 
gold.^' 

On December 26, 1895, General Grosvenor inserted in the 
Record, as part of his speech, this statement of Mr. Foster, 
(Record, December 26, 18^95, p. 320). 

In this same speech, Mr. Foster also made this unexplained 
statement, to wit: 

"The plates for these bonds had been prepared while Mr. Sherman 
was Secretary, and quite a supply was already printed and ready 
for execution." {Record, December 26, 1895, p. 320.) 

Mr. Sherman was Secretary of the Treasury from March, 1877, 
to March, 1881. In 1893 he was, and had been for some time, a 
member of the Senate, with no power, as a senator, to order such 
plates made. The question is, when did Mr. Sherman as "secre- 
tary" order these or other bond plates to be made? Did Mr. 
Sherman, while secretary, fix to issue bonds? Is it possible that 
"threatened panic and disaster" should occur under a protective 
tariff and a Republican administration? Indisputably and now 
confessedly, Mr. Foster issued a bond plate order on February 20, 
1893, as hereafter shown. 

Mr. Foster said to the committee in February, 1893, that he 
had no trouble in getting gold if he had the money with which 
to get it, hence he, in his report, December, 1892, called on Con- 
gress in February for $50,000,000 more revenue and $25,000,000 
more as a permanent addition to the gold reserve, and said he 
would have it that way if he had to manage the Treasury. 



GA8H TURNED OVER. 105 



But with the condition of the Treasury, as it was and had lyeen 
for many months, Mr. Poster could not exchange money from the 
Treasury many times to get gold. Some other means must be 
employed for him to tide over and unload an empty Treasury on 
Mr. Carlisle, his successor. So on February 20, 1893, he gave a 
"hurry up" order for the preparation of bond plates, to issue 
bonds wherewith to buy gold and fill up a bankrupt Treasury. 

M ^. FOSTER OMITTED TO TELL. 

Although Mr. Foster's testimony before the House Committee, 
February 25, 1893, covers nearly nineteen pages, yet it fails to 
show that four days before — 'February 20 — Mr. Foster had 
issued this bond plate order, which reads as follows: 

COPY OF FOSTER BOND PLATE ORDER. 

Treasuey Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D. C, March 25, 1897. 
Sir — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
this date, requesting the original letter, or a certified copy thereof, 
written by Mr. Secretary Foster February 20, 1893, addressed to the 
Chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, authorizing the prep- 
aration of certain plates. In compliance with said request I submit 
below a correct copy of the letter in question, also a copy of the text 
of the proposed bond. 

[Copy of letter.] 
Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D. C, February 20, 1893. 
Sir — You are hereby authorized and directed to prepare designs for 
the 3 per cent, bonds provided in a Senate amendment to the sundry 
civil bill now pending. The denominations which should first receive 
attention are 100s and 1,000s of the coupon bonds, and 100s, 1,000s 
and 10,000s of the registered bonds. This authority is given in ad- 
vance of the enactment, in view of pressing contingencies, and you are 
directed to hasten the preparation of the designs and plates in every 
possible manner. I inclose a memorandum for your guidance in pre- 
paring the script, for the body of the bond. 
Respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) Charles Foster, Secretary. 
The Chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 
text of the bond. 

Washington, April 1, 1893. 

This bond is issued in accordance with the provisions of section 

of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil ex- 
penses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1894, and 
for other purposes," approved March 3, 1893, and is redeemable at the 
pleasure of the United States after the 1st day of April, A. D., 1898, 
in coin of the standard value of the United States on said March 3, 
1893, with interest in such coin from the day of the date hereof at the 
rate of 3 per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually on the 1st days of 
October and April in each year. The principal and interest are ex- 
empt from the payment of all taxes or duties of the United States, as 
well as from taxation in any form, by or under State, municipal, or 
local authority. 

Respectfully, yours, L. J. Gage, Secretary, 

Hon. John W. Gaines, 

House of Representatives. 

The original order was on file December 25, 1897 in the Bureau 
of Engraving and Printing, Washington, D. C. 



106 CASH TURNED OYER. 

Senator Sherman introduced an amendment to an appropria- 
tion bill — Sundry Civil — in the Senate, to enact a law permitting 
the issuance of these bonds. The order, dated February 20, 1893, 
itself, in part reads: 

"This bond is issued in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 

of an act, entitled 'An act making appropriations for sundry civil 
expanses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1894, 
and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1893/ " 

This shows this order, dated February 20, was given to issue 
bonds under a law yet unapproved to be ^'approved March 3, 1893." 
The Senate passed the Sherman amendment but the House 
defeated it. The Democrats inheriting an empty treasury, Mr. 
Carlisle issued bonds under the old law. 

Recent letters on this subject from Mr. Carlisle and others read 
thus: 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, May 29, 1906. 
Hon. John G. Carlisle, 

30 Broad Street, New York, N. Y. 

My Dear Sir — The inclosed extract from the Congressional Record 
contains a statement made by Gen. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, on 
the 26th Inst. 

If you feel inclined, I would be glad to know whether or not the 
references therein made to you are correct. You will recall that the 
order to the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing was 
issued by Secretary Foster in February, 1893. Mr. Grosvenor under- 
takes to create the impression from this letter that this order to pre- 
pare the plates for ine printing of the bonds was made not for the 
purpose of meeting a deficit in the public revenues which existed, or 
would exist at the end of the Harrison administration, but was made 
at your suggestion. 

I write this letter after conferring with Mr. Williams, of Missis- 
sippi, as we do not want the statement of Mr. Grosvenor to go uncon- 
tradicted if it is not correct. 

I would be glad to have authority to use any reply you may make to 
this letter. 

Very truly, yours, C. L. Bartlett. 

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost & Colt, 
Attorneys and Counselors at Law, 
30 Broad Street, New York, June 5, 1906. 
Hon. Charles Bartlett, 

Mouse of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
Dear Sir: On my return to the city I find your favor of May 29, 
with its inclosure. Two or three years ago I received a letter from the 
Hon. Judson Harmon upon the same subject, which I answered, 
stating, in substance, that I had no connection whatever with the ar- 
rangement said to have been made between my predecessor, Hon 
Charles Foster, and certain New York banks, by which they were to 
advance to the Treasury Department the sum of $50,000, or any other 
amount, in gold or otherwise. I never heard of that arrangement 
until some months after I had become Secretary of the Treasury, and 
then my information was derived from the Bureau of Engraving and 
Printing, to which an order had been sent by my predecessor for the 
printing of the contemplated bonds. I never had any conversation 
with Mr. Gorman or my predecessor upon that subject, but, according 
to my best recollection, I had interviews with both of them in relation 
to the amendment which Mr. Sherman had offered and which is re- 
ferred to in the letter you inclose to me. I approved of that amend- 
ment. In view of the condition of the Treasury Department at that 
time, it was my opinion that the Secretary of the Treasury should be 



CASH TURNED OVER. 



107 



clothed with the power which the Sherman amendment conferred upon 
him in order that, if it shoukl become necessary to do so, he might 
procure gold by issuing and selling a 3 per cent, bond instead of bonds 
bearing 4 per cent, and 5 per cent., which were the only ones then 
authorized by law. In addition to the withdrawals of gold from the 
Treasury, which were then going on at a rapid rate, the monthly re- 
ceipts had been for several months previous to that time, and were 
then, less than the monthly expenditures of the Government, as will 
be seen l)y an examination of the official records of the Department. 
Yours, truly, J. G. Carlisle. 

REPUBLICAN FABRICATION OVERTAKEN. 

The McKinley tariff act was in full operation throughout 1893 
and eight months of 1894, that is, to August 28, 1894, when the 
Wilson tariff act repealed it. Therefore the first eighteen months 
of the second Cleveland administration was under the McKinley 
tariff act. Notwithstanding these well known official facts, the 
cringing, "stand pat" Republicans contended and charged that 
the "commercial failures" of 1893 and 1894 occurred under the 
"Democratic low tariff period," as shown by the Republican Cam- 
paign Book of 1904, which contains, p. 113, a table printed thus: 



COMMEECIAL FAILURES AND AVEKAGE OF LIABILITIES, 1880 TO 1903. 

[From Dun's Review, New York.] 

Total for the year. 



Calendar year. 



Number 

of 
failures. 



1880 4,735 

1881 5,582i 

1882 6,738 

1888 9,184 

1884 10,968 

1S85 10,637 

1886 9,834 

1887 9,634 

1888 10,676 

1889 10,882 

1890 10.907 

1891 12,273 

1892 10,344 

1893* 15,242 

1894* 13,885 

1895* 13,197 

1896* 15,088 

1897 13,351 

1898 12,186 

1899 9,337 

1900 10,774 

1901 11,002 

1902 11,615 

1903 12,069 



Number of 
business con- 

cerns. 

74'6,823^ 

781,689 

822,256 

863,993 

904,759 

919,990 

969,841 

994,281 

1,046,662 

1,051,140 

1,110,590 

1,142,951 

1,172,705 

1,193,113 

1,114,174 

1,209,282 

1,151,579 

1,058,521 

1.105,830 

1,147,595 

1,174,300 

1,219,242 

1,253,172 

1,281,481 



Per ct. 

of 

failures. 

0763^ 

.71 

.82 

1.06 

1.21 

1.16 

1.01 

.90 

1.02 

1.04 

.98 

1.07 

.88 

1.28 

1.25 

1.09 

1.31 

1.26 

1.10 

.81 

.92 

.90 

.93 

1.12 



Amount of 

liabilities. 

^$657752,"0(Kr 

81,155,932 
101,547,564 
172,874,172 
226,343,427 
124,220,321 
114,644,119 
167,560,944 
123,829,973 
148,784,337 
189,856,964 
189,868,638 
114,044,167 
346,779,889 
172,992,8.56 
173,196,060 
226,096,834 
154,332,071 
130,662,899 

90,879,889 
138,495,673 
113,092,376 
117,476,769 
155,444,185 



Average 
liabilities. 
$137886 
14,530 
15,070 
18,823 
20,632 
11,678 
11,651 
17,392 
11,595 
13,672 
17,406 
15,471 
11.025 
22,751 
12,458 
13,124 
14,992 
11,559 
10,722 
9,733 
12,854 
10,279 
10,114 
12,879 



*Democratic and low-tariff period. 

—Republican Campaign Book, 1904, p. 114. 

Taking the only complete years during which the McKinley 
and Wilson tariff acts were in operation, and striking an average 
"amount of liabilities" for the two periods, and this result is 
sh(.'wn : 

1891-2-3— McKinley tariff .$216,897,564 

1895-6 —Wilson Tariff 199,646,447 



Take the same years and "number of business concerns" failed 
average this: 

Average for period. , 

1891-2-3— McKinley tariff 1,169,589 

1895-6 —Wilson tariff 1,180,430 



108 CASH TURNED OVER. 

The number of "failures" were: 

1891-2-3— McKinley tariff 12,619 

1895-6 —Wilson tariff 14,142 

This same Republican table shows that for the six full years — 
1898 to 1903 — during which the Dingley tariff was in operation 
the total failures were 7,181,620, or an average for the period of 
1,196,696. Let the blind read: 

DINGLEY TARIFF. 

AVERAGE LIABILITIES. 

1898 1,105,830 1901 1,219,242 

1899 1,147,595 1902 1,253,172 

1900 1,174,300 1903 1,281,481 

Total 7,181,620 

Average per year 1,196,936 

The average "liabilities" for the period — six years — was $124,- 
241,965. 

MR. FOSTER IN NEW YORK EXCHANGING LEGAL TENDERS 
FOR GOLD. 

The Republicans deny that Mr. Poster exchanged legal tenders 
for gold, but here is the incontrovertible proof: 

Mr. Alexander Dana Noyes, in his book, "Thirty Years in 
American Finance," in part, says: 

NEW YORK BANKS TURNED OVER $6,000,000 TO $8,000,000 
TO MR. FOSTER. 

"In February Mr. Foster came in person to New York to urge the 
banks to give up gold voluntarily in exchange for the Treasury's 
legal tender surplus. (Neio York Financial Chronicle, Feb. 11-18, 
1896.) From a strict comm_ercial point of viev/, there was good 
reason why the bank should not make any such ej^change. But the 
plea that a panic must at all hazards be averted, combined with the 
argument of patriotic support of the Government at length prevailed. 

"The New York banks turned over to the Treasury, in exchange 
for notes, $6,000,000 to $8,000,000. {Neia York TriMme, Feb. 9, 10, 
11, 1893; Neio York Financial Chronicle, Feb. 11, 1893.) 

*'This, with some small amounts still paid through the customs 
revenue, was enough to keep the Treasury afloat until March 4, when 
the entire problem could be turned over to the new Executive. To 
his successor in the Treasury Mr. Foster left exactly $100,982,410 in 
the gold reserve (Treas. Rep., 1893, p. 72). and barely $25,000,000 
in other forms of money. (Same report, p. 96.) 

"Probably no financial administration has entered office under such 
disheartening conditions." 

Mr. Horace White, of New York, in his book, "Money and 
Banking," states that Mr. Foster came to New York city and 
exchanged legal tender notes for gold to tide over until he could 
be succeeded by Mr. Carlisle. Mr. White says: 

GOLD EXPORTS AGAIN "RESUMED." 

"Gold exports were resumed in 1892. In November of that year the 
gold in the Treasury had fallen from $185,000,000 (in August, 1890) 
to $124,0001000, and was still declining. Secretary Foster was much 
depressed. When he came to New York to speak at a dinner at the 
Chamber of Commerce, he said, among other things, that the Govern- 
ment intended to maintain gold payments, even if it became necessary 



GASH TURNED OVER. 109 



to sell Government bonds for the purpose. This was an admission on 
his part that gold payments could not be continued without resorting 
to extraordinary means. Probably Mr. Foster made this speech in 
order to test public sentiment and to find out whether he would be 
sustained in issuing Government bonds in time of peace. There had 
been no increase of the bonded debt since the close of the Civil War, 
and some persons in high places denied that there was any legal au- 
thority to issue new bonds. Apparently Mr. Foster was satisfied bj 
the applause with which his announced purpose was received by his 
hearers and by the press, for shortly afterwards he issued an order to 
tlie Bureau of Engraving and Printing to prepare new bonds. This 
order was dated February 20, 1893, and Mr. Foster was to go out of 
office on the 4th of March. Naturally, he preferred to put upon his 
successor the onus of issuing the bond if he could. 

GOT THE GOLD. 

So he came to New York and persuaded the banks to give him a 
few millions of gold in exchange for legal tender notes, enough to 
carry him along until the 4th of March. This* enabled him to glide 
out of office, leaving the $100,000,000 redemption fund intact, but 
with only $982,410 gold in excess of that sum and with the penumbra 
of a deficit in full view." 

On November 4, 1894, Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Carlisle, 
in a letter to the Hon. W. R. Morrison, showed the operations of 
the McKinley tariff, the amount of money paid over by the Cleve- 
land administration in 1889 to the Harrison administration, the 
amount of funds turned over by the Harrison administration 
four years later 1893 to the Cleveland administration and stating 
that over $54,000,000 of national bank trust funds were covered 
into the treasury under Mr. Foster's administration and that Mr. 
Foster "had held" up the payments of Uncle Sam's debts "to a 
very considerable extent to avoid a reduction of the 'balance on 
'land.'" — Mr. Carlisle said: 

DEFICITS UNDER THE McKINLEY TARIFF. 

* ****** 

"The records of the Department show that during the fiscal year 
1888 the receipts Avere $111,341,273 in excess of the expenditures; 
during 1889, $87,761,080; during 1890, $85,040,271; during 1891, the 
year after the passage of the McKinley bill, $26,838,541; in 1892, 
$9,914,453; in 1893, $2,341,674; and in the year 1894, during the 
■whole of ivhich the McKinley hill loas in full force, the expenditures 
exceeded the receipts to the amount of $69,803,260, notwithstanding 
the expenditures were $16,752,676 less than in the preceding year. 
You will thus observe that the receipts in excess of expenditures 
diminished annually under the operation of the McKinley tariff act, 
until finally a large deficiency was the result. 

REDEMPTIONS. 

"The statement of Mr. McKinley that I had used the gold reserve to 
meet the daily expenses of the Goverment is incorrect. 

I enclose herewith a printed document containing the statements 
made by me before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives in January last, from Avhich it will be seen (see page 
13) that United States notes and Treasury notes of 1890 had been 
redeemed in gold to the amount of $58,641,866 in excess of the re- 
serve fund raised by the sale of bonds. These redemptions were 
made with gold received from all the various sources of revenue. 
The total amount of United States notes and Treasury notes of 1890 
redeemed in gold up to the present date is $249,808,494, while the 
whole reserve fund provided for by law was $100,000,000 in the first 
instance, and the proceeds of the bonds sold in February last, amount- 



110 CASH TURNED OVER. 

ing to $58,560,000. Instead, therefore, of using the lawful reserve to 
defray ordinary expenditures, we have in fact largely used the ordi- 
nary receipts for the purpose of redemption, the purpose for which 
the reserve itself was intended." 

CASH PAID OVER TO HARRISON BY CLEVELAND 
ADMINISTRATION. 

"On the 1st day of March, 1889, the beginning of President Har- 
rison's Administration, the funds in the Treasury actually available, 
exclusive of the $100,000,000 reserve, were as follows: 

Agency account $64,502,445.02 

Net balance in the Treasury 165,846,471.10 

Total $230,348,916.12 

CASH TURNED OVER TO CLEVELAND BY HARRISON 
ADMINISTRATION. 

On the 1st day of March, 1893, the beginning of the Cleveland 
Administration, the funds in the Treasury actually available, turned 
over by the Harrison Administration, exclusive of the $100,000,000 
reserve, were as follows: 

Agency account $38,365,832.90 

Net balance in the Treasury '. . . 24,084,742.28 

Total $62,450,575.18 

This statement is made in accordance with the form now in use, 
and exhibits the actual condition of the Treasury at the dates men- 
tioned, including all available assets of every kind." 

BANK FUNDS TURNED INTO "CASH." 

"In addition to the ordinary receipts of the Government, there was, 
as you know, covered into the Treasury during the Administration of 
President Harrison, $54,207,975.75, which was held in trust as a fund 
for the redemption of national bank notes. This proceeding was au- 
thorized by the act of July 14, 1890, commonly known as the "Sher- 
man Act." 

The item denominated "agency account" is that portion of the mis- 
cellaneous cash in the Treasury held for certain liabilities appearing 
on the books of the Treasury, but not represented by demand cer- 
tificates or Treasury notes of 1890 outstanding; 

From the 1st day of March, 1885, the beginning of Mr. Cleveland's 
first Administration, to March 1, 1889, the public debt was reduced 
$341,448,449.20, and from March 1, 1889, to March 1, 1893, the reduc- 
tion was $236,527,666.10." 

MR. FOSTER HELD UP PAYMENT OF UNCLE SAM'S DEBTS. 

"It is true, as you suggest, that for some time previous to the close 
of the last Administration, warrants upon requisition were held up 
to a very considerable extent in order to avoid a x'eduction of the 
balance on hand, but the amount of these requisitions can not now 
be ascertained without devoting a great deal of time and investiga- 
tion on the subject. I think, however, they amount to several million 
dollars." 

QUARTERLY DEFICITS IN 1891 AND 1892 UNDER THE 
McKINLEY TARIFF. 

Mr. Noyes, in his "Thirty Years of American Finance," p. 138, 
says: 

"There was a Treasury deficit in the fourth quarter of the fiscal 
year 1891, the first quarterly deficit in many years (Treas, Report, 



GASH TURNED OVER. Ill 

1891, p. 33) ; it was repeated in two of the quarterly periods of 1892; 
but in each case a fortunate, though temporary, expansion of the 
revenues of other months helped the Treasury through the year. At 
last came a season, when the trade from which the revenue was 
drawn contracted, with financial and political results as extraordi- 
nary as anything in our history." (Treas. R., 1892, p. 30.) 

OFFICIAL PROOF OF QUARTERLY DEFICITS. 

The receipts, as stated by the Treasury report, 1891, for the 
fourth quarter were $84,528,082.41; expenditures, $85,436,167.29. 
The total receipts for the year, $393,6.12,447.31; expenditures, 
$365,773,905.35. 

The Treasury report for 1892 shows the receipts for the second 
quarter (1892) were $83,945,762.40; expenditures, $87,196,906.20, 
while for the fourth quarter the receipts were $87,140,560.46; 
expenditures, $89,622,219.85, the total receipts for the year being 
$354,937,784.24; expenditures, $345,023,330.58. 

The annual surplus in either of these years is more than offset 
by the National Bank Fund due the banks at this time without 
charging off the hitherto "unavailable money" in the Treasury, 
the bank deposits and the limited tender silver coin. 

FINANCIAL STRINGENCY AND "THREATENED PANIC AND 
DISASTER" AS EARLY AS 1890, HARRISON ADMINISTRA- 
TION, UNDER TARIFF 1883 AND McKINLEY TARIFF. 

To avert a panic in 1890, Mr. Secretary Windom was compelled 
to purchase Government bonds to the amount of over $74,000,000 
at a premium amounting to more than $22,000,000, and he says 
that the bank deposits and the fractional silver were practically 
of no use as an actual available surplus to meet public obliga- 
tions, and in his report of December 1, 1890, said he could not 
use these two items as an "actual available surplus," but we see 
two years later, 1892, Secretary Foster did count and use them 
as part of the "available surplus" to avoid showing a deficit. 

Mr. Windom also states that the national bank redemption 
fund was the only "actual available surplus" in September, 1890, 
in the Treasury, and with it "panic and disaster" were "averted." 

TREASURY REPORT, DECEMBER 1, 1890. 

Secretary Windom, in his report (December 1, 1890) said: 

"Tne total apparent surplus on September 10, when the money 
stringency culminated was $99,509,220.53. Of this amount $24,216,- 
810.96 was on deposit in the bank, and presumably in circulation 
among the people, and $21,709,379.70 was fractional silver, which had 
been in the Treasury vaults for several years, and was not available 
for any considerable disbursements. 

"Deducting the sum of these two items ($45,926,184.73) left an 
actual available surplus of only $53,583,035.80. 

"The amount of the bank redemption fund, then in the Treasury, 
which had been transferred to the available funds by the Act of 
July 14, 1890, was $54,000,000, leing suhstantially the amount of the 
available surplus on September 10, 1890. . . . 

"This bank note fund had been in the Treasury in varying amounts 
for many years. In August, 1887, it was $105,873,095.60, which had 
been gradually reduced by disbursements to the amount above named." 



112 DEMOCRATS INHERITED CONDITIONS. 

"PANIC AND DISASTER AVERTED" AS EARLY AS SEPTEIVU 
BER, 1890, BY USING NATIONAL BANK FUND. 

"At the time when the financial pressure in September reached its 
climax, the extraordinary disbursements for bond purchases had sub- 
stantially exhausted the entire ordinary Treasury accumulation, 
and but for the fact that Congress had loisely had transferred the 
bank note redemption fund to the available cash, there would have 
been no money at command in the Treasury, by which the strained 
financial conditions could have been relieved and threatened panic 
and disaster averted. -. . 

Had this fund been in the banks instead of the Treasury, the 
business of the country would have been adjusted to the increased 
supply, and when the strain came it would have been impossible for 
the banks to meet it. The Government could not have withdrawn it 
from the banks without compelling a contraction of their loan, and 
thus diminishing their ability to give relief to their customers." 

Mr. Windom says that the bank deposits could not, with safety 
to the banks or in justice to "their customers," be withdrawn, 
but Mr. Foster did withdraw them down to about $10,000,000 in 
1893. He had to do so for want of money to count and use them 
with the small silver coin as "available cash" to avoid showing a 
deficit. 



DEMOCRATS INHERITED DISCOURAGING CONDITIONS 
FROM THE HARRISON ADMINISTRATION. 

The Democratic administration operated under the McKinley 
tariff eighteen months — March, 1893, to August 28, 1894 — when the 
Wilson tariff act took effect. The McKinley tariff proved to be 
a failure as a revenue producer, but a successful breeder of panics 
and a responsive mother of trusts. 

In the midst of a panic, facing an empty treasury, with our 
gold fleeing abroad, the Democrats came into power March 4, 
1893, taking charge of the government under the McKinley tariff 
and the Sherman silver law, the enactment of which they had 
opposed, repudiated and condemned, both of which Secretary 
Foster criticised in his last report. From the wreckage, the old 
ship of state had to be rebuilt and order brought out of disorder. 

In speaking of the inevitable embarrassment of the Democratic 
administration at this time, Mr. Noyes said: 

"Probably no financial administration in our history has entered 
office under such disheartening conditions." 

The Democrats in extra session, November 1, 1893, partially 
repealed the Sherman silver law. Therefore whatever happy 
results followed from this repeal should be credited to the 
Democrats. 

The income tax, enacted by the Wilson Tariff Act, similar to 
those enacted by Congress for nearly a century, was declared by 



DEMOCRATS INHERITED CONDITIONS 1. 

the Supreme Court of the United States unconstitutional, about 
which the national Democracy in 1896 declared: 

INCOME TAX PLANK. 

But for this decision by the Supreme Court there would be no deficit 
in the revenue under the law passed by a Democratic Congress in 
strict pursuance of the uniform decisions of that court for nearly 100 
years, that court having in that decision sustained Constitutional 
objections to its enactment which had previously been overruled by 
the ablest judges who have ever sat on that bench. We declare that 
it is the duty of Congress to use all the Constitutional power which 
remains after that decision, or which may come from its reversal by 
the court as it may hereafter be constituted, so that the burdens 
of taxation may be equally and impartially laid, to the end that 
wealth may bear its due proportion of the expense of the Government. 

Population and Wealth of United States (Official). 
From Commerce and Finance, April, 1904. 

Population. Wealth. Per Capita. 

1850 23,191,876 $7,135,780,000 $307.69 

1860 31,448,321 16,159,616,000 513.93 

1870 38,558,371 30,068,518,000 779.83 

1880 50,155,783 42,642,000,000 850.20 

1890 62,622,250 65,037,091,000 1,038.57 

1900 76,303,387 *$94,300,000,000 $1,235.86 

The following official table shows the annual income tax col- 
lected from 1863 to 1873, when our taxable wealth was much less 
than in 1894 or in 1906: 



INCOME TAX— REVENUE FROM. 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary. 

Washington, D. C, December 18, 1893. 

Sir—1 have the honor to transmit herewith the statement of the 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue showing the amount of tax 
derived from income from all sources, under the income-tax law of 
1862, for the years 1863 to 1873' inclusive, called for in Senate 
resolution of the 11th instant. 

Very respectfully, 

J. G. Carlisle, Secretary. 
Hon. Adlai E. Stevenson, 

President of the United States Senate. 



Recapitulation by Years. 



Tears. 



1863. 
1864. 
1865. 
1866. 
1867. 
1868. 
1869. 
1870. 
1871. 
1872 . 
1873. 



Total 



From per- 


From corpor- 


sonal income. 


ations. 


$455,741.26 


$1,589,935.28 


14,799,313.88 


3,656,244 . 79 


20,400,671.69 


8,519,527.00 


60,547,882.43 


8,716,881.91 


57,040,640.67 


7,943,796.69 


32,027,610.78 


8,384,426.18 


25,025,068.86 


9,204,824.46 


27,115,046.11 


9,551,301.09 


14,434,949.39 


3,940,438.81 


8,416,685.87 


5,725,611.26 


3,927,252.76 


1,017,517.14 



From prop- 
erty in U. S. 
o wned by 
any citizen 
res ding 
abroad and 
interest on 
U. S. securi- 
ties. 



From in- 
come of 1863, 
special duty 
on. 



$134,048.44 
303,326.93 



$452,550.09 



$264,190,863.70 $68,250,504.61 $4! 
(♦Republican Campaign, 1904, p. 442.) 



r,375.37 $452,550.09 



114 



DEMOCRATS INHERITED CONDITIONS. 



Statement Showing Receipts feom Income Tax, Etc. 

From salar- 
Years. Total. Officers ^and G^and total. 

employes. 

1863 $2,045,676.54 $696,181.71 $2,741,858.25 

1864 18,589,607.11 1,705,124.63 20,294,731.74 

1865 29,223,525.62 2,826,491.82 32,050,017.44 

1866 69,717,314.43 3,717,394.69 73,434,709.12 

1867 64,984,437.36 1,029,991.98 66,014,429.34 

1868 40,412,036 . 96 1,043,561 . 40 41,455,598 . 36 

1869 34,229,893 . 32 561,962 . 52 31,791,855 . 84 

1870 36,666,347 . 20 1,109,526 . 42 37,775,873 . 62 

1871 • 18,375,388.20 787,262.55 19,162,650.75 

1872 14,142,297.13 294,564.65 14,436,861.78 

1873 4,944,769 . 90 117,541 . 72 5,062,311 . 62 

Total $333,331,293 . 77 $13,889,604 . 09 $347,229,897 . 86 

The Republicans have stubbornly refused, over the protest of 
the Democrats, to take a single step towards the re-enactment of 
an income tax, because if justice were done it would inevitably 
compel the reduction of the exorbitant and oppressive tariff rates 
that foster and shelter the monopolies, combinations and trusts 
that perpetuate the Republican party in power. 

Yet, notwithstanding all these adverse conditions, the oflQcial 
figures, given below, show that our exports of merchandise 
under the Wilson tariff, 1897, struck the Hllion dollar mark — 
$1,154,379,735, while from October, 1892, to September, 1893—12 
months — our exports were, under the McKinley tariff, only $876,- 
332,434. Here are the official figures issued by the "Treasury De- 
partment July 1, 1904, Circular No. 72": 

TABLE NO. 1. 

Values of Imports and Exports of Merchandise under the McKinley 

Tariff Act. 

Exports, 
Imports, domestic and 
foreign. 

October 1, 1890, to September 30, 1891 $824,716,842 $923,362,015 

October 1, 1891, to September 30, 1892 837,280,798 998,226,775 

October 1, 1892, to September 30, 1893 830,150,318 876,332,434 

October 1, 1893, to August 31, 1894a 603,865,896 790,706,509 

a Eleven months. 

TABLE NO. 2. 

Values of Imports and Exports of Merchandise under the Wilson 

Tariff Act. 

Exports, 
Imports, domestic and 
foreign. 

September 1, 1894, to August 31, 1895 $759,108,416 $806,670,050 

September 1, 1895, to July 31, 1896 687,695,637 837,802,519 

August 1, 1896, to July 31, 1897 766,296,619 1,054,379,735 

TABLE NO. 3. 

Excess of Exports of Merchandise Aloniu and of Merchandise and 
Silver under McKinley Act. 

Merchandise 
Merchandise, and silver. 

October 1, 1890, to September 30, 1891 $98,645,173 $103,537,310 

October 1, 1891, to September 30, 1892 160,945,977 175,091,707 

October 1, 1892, to September 30, 1893 46,182,116 68,672,711 

October 1, 1893, to August 31, 1894 186,840,613 221,327,708 



TABLE NO. 4. 

Excess of Exports of Merchandise Alone and of Merchandise and 
Silver under Wilson Act. 

Merchandise 
Merchandise, and silver. 

September 1, 1894, to August 31, 1895 $47,561,634 $84,876,022 

September 1, 1895, to July 31, 1896 150,106,882 179,560,567 

August 1, 1896, to July 31, 1897 288,083,116 318,379,772 



DEMOCRATS INHERITED CONDITIONS. 115 



TABLE NO. 5. 

Annual Average Excess of Exports of Merchandise Alone. 

Under McKinley Act of 1890 $123,153,470 

Under Wilson Act of 1894 161,917,210 

TABLE NO. 6. 

Annual Average Excess of Exports of Merchandise and Silver. 

Under McKinley Act of 1890 $141,157,359 

Under Wilson Act of 1894 194,272,120 

TABLE NO. 7. 

The McKinley tariff act took effect on the 6th day of October, 

1S90. 

Receipts from Customs and Total Receipts from all Sources under 
McKinley Act. 

Customs. All sources. 

Nine months ending June 30, 1891 $151,548,298.14 $280,686,613.16 

Fiscal year ending June 30, 1892 177,452,964.15 354,937,784.24 

Fiscal year ending June 30, 1893 203,355,016.73 385,819,628.78 

Fiscal year ending June 30, 1894 131,818,530.62 297,722,019.25 

Months of July and August, 1894 20,673,479.59 76,351,447.54 

Total $684,848,289.23 $1,395,517,492.97 

TABLE NO. 8. 

The Wilson tariff act took effect on the 28th day of August, 1894. 

Receipts from Customs and Total Receipts from all Sources under 
Wilson Act. 

Customs. All sources. 

Ten months ending June 30,1895 $131,485,137.86 $237,038,627.57 

Fiscal year ending June 30, 1896 160,021,751.67 326,976,200.38 

Fiscal year ending June 30, 1897 176,554,126.65 347,721,705.16 

Month of July, 1897 16,966,801.65 39,027,364.25 

Total $485,027,817.83 $950,763,897.36 

The Dingley tariff act took effect on the 24th day of July, 1897. 

The average monthly receil)ts from customs only, Wilson tariff, 
during the last thirteen months of its operation were $14,886,- 
225.25, while for the fourteen months under and preceding the 
repeal of the McKinley tariff the average monthly receipts from 
customs only were $10,892,286.44. 

The total customs receipts only for the two periods were: 

Wilson tariff ( 13 months) $193,520,928.30 

McKinley tariff (14 months) 152,492,410.21 

These figures are based on tables 7 and 8. 

The average monthly revenues from all sources, under the Mc- 
Kinley tariff, fiscal year 1894, were $24,810,168.27, while under the 
Wilson Act, fiscal year 1897, and July following — ^thirteen 
months — the average monthly revenues from all sources were 
$29,749,928.41, or for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1897— twelve 
months— $28,976,808.76. These figures are based on tables 7 and 8. 



116 



TARIFF ON IRON AND STEEL, 



TARIFF ON IRON AND STEEL 

A COMPARISON OF THE TARIFF LAW OF 1893 WITH THAT 

OF 1890. 

One of the Republican arguments in favor of protectionism is 
that exports have always increased under a protective tarifE and 
decreased under a tariff for revenue. This claim is sophistical. 
It is not borne out by the facts. During the four years' life of 
the Wilson tariff the exports of iron and manufactures thereof, 
exclusive of iron ore, exceeded the exports of the four preceding 
years under the McKinley protective tariff by $128,239,783. 

Table showing imports and exports of iron and manufactures 
thereof, exclusive of iron ore, for the four years, 1893-1896 inclu- 
sive, under the Wilson Tariff. 



Year. Imports. Exports. 

1893 34,937,974 30,106,482 

1894 20,925,967 29,220,264 

1895 23,048,515 32,000,989 

1896 25,338,103 41,160,877 

Total 104,250,559 132,488,612 



Excess of Excess of 

Imports Exports 

over over 

Exports. Imports. 

4,831,492 

, 8,294,297 

8,952,474 

15,822,774 

4,831,492 33,069,545 

Balance 28,238,053 

4,831,492 



In the preceding 4-year period (protective tariff), 1889-1892 in- 
clusive, we imported a total of $166,629,767 and exported only 
$104,288,829, leaving an excess of imports over exports to the 
amount of $62,340,938, as compared -with an increase of exports 
over imports under the Wilson tariff amounting to $28,238,053. 

In 1880, under a Republican protective tariff, we imported $71,- 
266,699 and exported only $14,716,524 worth of goods of the same 
class. In 1891, two years before the Wilson bill was passed, 
we imported $53,544,372 and exported only $28,909,614. In these 
two years, 1880 and 1891, of high protection we exported a total 
of iron products reaching only $43,626,138, or $88,862,474 less 
than our exports of the same class of goods during the life of the 
Wilson tariff. 

It is true that our iron industry has developed rapidly under 
impulse of high protection, which gives such enormous profits on 
capital invested in the manufacture of iron and steel. But where 
do those profits come from? Surely, they come out of the pockets 
of people who use iron and steel in this country more than they 
can or do gold; and they constitute, to the extent of the tariff 
tax, just so much taken from the people and given to the manu- 
facturer. For while the tax on imports creates a monopoly for 
the manufacturer, the government gets only the amount paid on 
iron and steel actually imported, while the manufacturer — the 
great Steel Trust — gets an equal amount pro rata on all the 
domestic consumption. It is for this reason that the Carnegies, 
Fricks, Schwabs, Thaws, Coreys, Hartjes and the rest of the Coke 



TARIFF ON IRON AND STEEL. 117 



ind Steel magnates have reaped such enormous fortunes from 
he American people. It was for this reason that they made the 
>ingley tariff of 1897, nearly prohibitive, and caused imports to 
'all off as compared with previous years. 
Those who wish to retain this tariff do so either because they 
re deceived by false pretenses, or else because they are partici- 
ating in the plunder. The Steel Trust, fortified behind this pro- 
;ectionism, plunders the American people and sells its products 
cheaper abroad than at home. The greater its exports under such 
circumstances the worse for our own people. See further re- 
narks herein where it is clearly proven that the Steel Trust sells 
ts products to foreigners cheaper than to American consumers. 

SOME FACTS ABOUT THE SO-CALLED PANIC OF 1893. 

Secretary of the Treasury Shaw devoted considerable attention to 
;lie tariff question in an address delivered at St. Louis. Mr. Shaw 
-eminded his hearers of the hard times of 1893-4, and he sought to 
mpress upon their minds the idea that tariff legislation by a Demo- 
sratic Congress — the Wilson bill — Kvas responsible for the hard times 
Df tnat period. 

It will be just as well to keep history straight. The truth is that 
every panic since the civil war originated under Republican rule and 
ieveloped under Republican legislation. 

The great panic which gave "Black Friday" to history occurred dur- 
ing the month of September, 1869, when the Republican party was in^ 
power. 

The great panic marked by the failure of Jay Cooke & Co., occurred 
in September, 1873. Then the Republican party was in power and 
eleven months prior to the beginning of that panic that party had 
been re-elected to power. 

The hard times to which Secretary Shaw refers did not begin in 
1894; they began long prior to that year and, indeed, long prior to 
the presidential election of 1892; and it is a fact, although Republican 
orators and Republican organs try to forget it, that the so-called 
panic of 1893 began and played its greatest havoc under that famous 
tariff law kno\vn as the McKinley bill. 

It may be well for Commoner readers to keep readily at hand some 
of the facts and figures relating to this question. 

The Republican party was restored to power March 4, 1889. 

The McKinley tariff bill became a law October 6, 1890, and re- 
mained in effect until August 27, 1894. 

The Wilson tariff law, enacted by a Democratic Congress, went into 
effect August 27, 1894. 

If any one will take the trouble to examine the Republican cam- 
paign text-book for 1904, pages 125, 126 and 127 he will find consider- 
able space devoted to a statement of business disasters from July 18, 
1893, until November 13, 1894. The Republican managers expected 
their readers to remember that the Cleveland administration was in- 
augurated March 4^, 1893, and that all these disasters occurred under 
Democratic administration; but they expected their readers to forget 
that the Republican tariff law was in force up to August 27, 1894, or 
covering more than twelve months of the sixteen months' period of 
business disasters as described by the Republican text-book. 

In their references to the panic of 1893 Republican orators and organs 
habitually overlook the date when the McKinley law ceased and the 
Wilson law went into effect. But when in their tariff discussions they 
are required to face the fact that that panic played its greatest havoc 
during the life of the Republican tariff law they answer that it was 
the anticipation of tariff legislation growing out of Democratic victory 
in 1892 which brought on these business disasters. For this reason in 
their list of business disasters they place July 18, 1893, as marking 
the beginning of that great panic. 



118 TARIFF ON IRON AND STEEL. 



Let it be remembered that the McKinley tariff bill became a law 
October 6, 1890, and that the first indications of the so-called panic of 
1893-4 were given November 11, 1890, A LITTLE MORE THAN 
THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE McKINLEY TARIFF BILL BECAME 
A LAW. From that date the panic raged. 

The Harrison administration was inaugurated March 4, 1889, and 
when the first indications of this panic were given President Harrison 
had not exhausted the half of the term for which he was elected. It 
is admitted by everyone familiar with the facts that President Harri- 
son's administration had plates prepared for the bonds and Mr. Har- 
rison's Secretary of the Treasury made a visit to New York for the 
purpose of negotiating the bond deal. He was wired by Mr. Harrison 
to return to Washington. Mr. Harrison said that he had concluded 
not to have any bond issues under his administration, and in order to 
avoid the stigma the Harrison administration warded off the bond 
issue and unloaded it on the incoming Cleveland administration. 

It may not be out of place to point out that when the Democratic 
administration surrendered the reins of government, March 4, 1889, 
there was in the federal treasury the largest surplus in history. When 
the Republican party went out of power, March 4, 1893, there was a 
large deficit, and the incoming administration was finally persuaded 
to make the bond issues which its Republican predecessor had at one 
time thought to be necessary, but had skilfully avoided. 

The claim that the business disasters of the period referred to were 
due to the popular fear of tariff legislation to be enacted by Democrats 
is, as has been said, met by the fact that this panic began two years 
prior to the presidential election day of 1892. The following will 
serve as reminders on this point: 

November 11, 1890, the reports showed financial distress in New 
York. The New York Clearing House Association voted its certificates 
to banks in need of assistance. 

The Boston Clearing House Association did the same thing Novem- 
ber. 17 Barker Bros. & Co., big bankers in Philadelphia, suspended at 
that time, with liabilities placed at $5,000,000. 

November 19, 1890, there was a run on the Citizens' Savings Bank 
of New York, and a receiver was appointed for the North River Bank. 

November 22, 1890, the United Rolling Stock Company of Chicago 
assigned, with liabilities at $6,851,000. 

November 28, 1890, B. K. Jamieson & Co., the Philadelphia bankers, 
failed, with liabilities at $2,000,000. 

December 6, 1890, the Oliver Iron and Steel Mills of Pittsburg shut 
down, discharging 2,000 employes. On the same date the cotton firm 
of Myer & Co., of New Orleans, failed, with liabilities at $2,000,000. 

January 3, 1891, the Scottdale Rolling Mills and Pike Works and 
the Charlotte Furnace and Coke Works in Pennsylvania closed, throw- 
ing 10,000 employes out of work. 

January 18, 1891, the American National Bank at Kansas City 
suspended, with liabilities at $2,250,000. 

May 8, 1891, the Spring Garden National Bank at Philadelphia 
closed its doors, and the Pennsylvania Safe Deposit and Trust Com- 
pany made an assignment. 

The Homestead strike and other strikes during 1892, and prior to 
election day, are well remembered by the people. 

—The Commoner, May 11, 1906. 



CORRUPTION AND SCANDALS. 119 



REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION AND LIFE INSURANCE 
SCANDAL— THE CORTELYOU SCANDAL- 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
AND LABOR. 

On the afternoon of October 24, 1904, during the closing days 
)f the Presidential campaign, Judge Parker was visited at his 
lome, Rosemount, by a delegation comprising several political 
lubs which were then aiding in his campaign for the Presidency, 
tanding upon the veranda of his home, Judge Parker addressed 
hem upon the issues of the campaign, and, among other questions 
discussed, spoke as follows: 

"Many years have passed since my active participation in politics, 
n the meantime a startling change has taken place in the methods of 
onducting campaigns — a change not for the better, but for the worse ; 

change that has introduced debasing and corrupt methods, which 
hreaten the integrity of our government, leaving it perhaps a repub- 
ic in form, but not a republic in substance — no longer a government 
)f the people, by the people, for the people, but a government whose 
fficers are practically chosen by a handful of corporate managers 
svho levy upon the assets of the stockholders whom they represent 
uch sums of money as they deem requisite to place the conduct of 
:he government in such hands as they consider best for their private 
interests. * * * 

"Some of the enterprises which have unduly thrived through favor- 
itism, and which have been permitted by statute to indirectly levy 
ribute upon the people, have, in the course of time become so rich and 
trong that they can and do contribute vast sums, when it is made 
ilear that it will advantage them, and they contribute upon the prom- 
se, direct or implied, that they shall be permitted to continue to tax 
he people for their own benefit. 

"Under such promises contributions have been made not infrequently 
n such large measure as to induce and procure colonization, repeating 
md bribery in doubtful States. 

****** 

The excessively protected interests which formerly poured out their 

:reasure in order to continue existing and procure the passage of new 

aws permitting further accumulation, have been joined by the com- 

3inations popularly called trusts. Their plan is to perpetuate the 

present administration. 
■■ * * * * * * 

"A corporation will subscribe to a political party only because the 
orporation expects that party, through its control of public officers, 
jxecutive or legislative, to do something for the benefit of the cor- 
. oration, or to refrain from doing something to its injury. No other 
motive can be imagined. In the nature of things, no other motive 
can exist. 

"The relations established mean the expectation, if not the agree- 
ment, actual or implied, that government action is to be influenced by 
a,nd for corporation interests. No sophistry can give any other aspect 
to the transaction in the minds of reasonable men." 

AND AGAIN, ON THE NIGHT OF OCTOBER 31, 1904, JUDGE 
PARKER ADDRESSED A MASS-MEETING IN MADISON 
SQUARE GARDEN, NEW YORK CITY, AND IN DISCUSSING 
THIS SAME QUESTION, SAID: 

"In the earlier utterance, I nave referred in detail to what is no- 
toriously going on in the matter of the collection of funds by the Re- 



120 CORRUPTION AND SCANDALS. 

publican party for the campaign. Now, I know, as you know, that 
money is required in order to defray the expenses of a campaign. 
Under right conditions its collection and expenditure are equally 
legitimate. But the spectacle of demanding campaign funds now pre- 
sented to this country is, when rightly regarded, of a character to 
shock the moral sense. 

"WE SHALL DO WELL TO PAUSE FOR A MOMEI^T TO ASK 
WHITHER WE ARE DRIFTING IN OUR INDIFFERENCE TO 
RIGHT STANDARDS, AND TO OUR OLD-FASHIONED SENSE OF 
PROPRIETY IN SUCH MATTERS. 

"Congress creates a new Department of Commerce and Labor. Of 
that department the President of the United States appoints a Sec- 
retary. That Secretary was his private Seereary. Within the de- 
partment provision is made for the collection, from large corporations, 
including the so-called tusts, of information which, it is to be borne in 
mind, is to be submitted to the President for public or private use, 
as he may direct. By grace of the same Executive this Secretary, 
through whose department this information is collected, becomes 
Chairman of the Republican National Committee. His chief duty it 
has been, and still is, to collect funds for the purpose of securing the 
election of the President. AND IT IS NOW NOTORIOUS THAT 
THERE HAS RESULTED FROM THIS ORGANIZED IMPOR- 
TUNITY—WHATEVER MAY BE THE PRECISE WAY IN WHICH 
IT IS MADE EFFECTIVE— AN OVERFLOWING TREASURY TO 
THE COMMITTEE, OF WHICH BOAST IS OPENLY AND CON- 
TINUALLY MADE. ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE SATISFACTORY 
TO THE CONSCIENCE OF REPUBLICAN LEADERS, IT MUST, I 
FIRMLY BELIEVE, BE CONDEMNED AS NOTHING SHORT OF 
SCANDALOUS, NOT ALONE BY MYSELF OR THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY, BUT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL. 

"It is said by Mr. Hay that the character of Mr. Lincoln furnishes 
the standard for Mr. Roosevelt in his conduct as President. I do not 
have to pause to hear you thundering 'No!' when I ask, 'Would Lin- 
coln have done or permitted this to be done ?' The whole performance 
is a shameless exhibition of a willingness to make compromise with 
decency in order that sums of money may be gathered together suffi- 
ciently vast to justify the insolent boast, even now, that there is no 
question as to the success which, by such a course, the Republican 
managers so confidently predict. The performance is entitled only to 
the credit that it in no sense partakes of hypocrisy. It is as bold as 
it is improper and indefensible." 

Not until November 4, 1904, tivelve days after the first utterance 
of Judge Parker on this question, did President Roosevelt deign 
to publicly take cognizance of the charges made hy Judge Parker, 
at which time he gave out a'puMic stater/vent, in which he said: 



"But there is not one particle of truth in the statement as regards 
anything that has gone on in the management of the Republican cam- 
paign. Mr. Parker's accusations against Mr. Cortelyou and me are 
monstrous. If true, they would brand both of us forever with infamy ; 
and, inasmuch as they are false, heavy must be the condemnation of 
the man making them. 

****** 

"The assertion that Mr. Cortelyou had any knowledge gained while 
in any official position whereby he was enabled to secure, and did se- 
cure, any contributions from any corporation is a falsehood. The as- 
sertion that there has been any blackmail, direct or indirect, by Mr. 
Cortelyou or by me, is a falsehood. 

"The assertion that there has been made in my behalf and by my 
authority by Mr. Cortelyou, or by anyone else, any pledge or promise, 
or that there has been any understanding as to future immunities 
or benefits, in recognition of any contribution from any source, is a 
wicked falsehood." 



CORRUPTION AND SCANDALS. 121 

ON THE NIGHT OF NOVEMBER 5, 1904, JUDGE PARKER 
ADDRESSED A LARGE AUDIENCE IN BROOKLYN, AND 
TOOK OCCASION TO REPLY TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S 
STATEMENT. HE SAID, IN PART: 

"WHETHER THERE WERE REAL DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN 
THESE GREAT POWERS AND THE ADMINISTRATION, DIFFI- 
CULTIES WHICH HAVE SINCE BEEN SETTLED TO THE SATIS- 
FACTION OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED, OR WHETHER 
THERE WERE NO DIFFICULTIES TO BE COMPROMISED AND 
ADJUSTED, THEIR ACTION BEING BUT A PLAY TO DECEIVE 
THE VOTERS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE TRUSTS ARE 
NOT NOW OPPOSED TO THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PRESENT 
ADMINISTRATION. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS COMMON 
KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED TO FURNISH 
SUCH A SUM OF MONEY TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE AS IT IS HOPED WILL SECURE THE 'FLOATERS' 
IN THE DOUBTFUL STATES FOR THE REPUBLICAN TICKET. 

* * -iS- * -It- •»• 

"HE SHUT HIS EYES TO WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND SINCE 
THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN THE FREQUENT MEETING OF 
THE TRUST MAGNATES, THE MONEYS HAVE BEEN POURING 
INTO THE TREASURY ALL THE MORE FREELY AND ALL THE 
MORE PLENTIFULLY BECAUSE OF THE ATTITUDE TAKEN 
BY ME, AND WHICH, IT IS TRUE, I HAVE ENFORCED FROM 
DAY TO DAY. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT DENY THESE CON- 
TRIBUTIONS NOW. 

* * » * * * 

"He is in a position to hnoio what contributions have been made to 
the Republican National Committee by the trusts; if there have been 
no trust contributions he could easily have said so. He did not say so. 
He cannot say so. He has waited until the closing hour of the cam- 
paign to make easier the pretense of an answer. But it is not an an- 
swer. It is a confession with a plea in avoidance addressed to a 
kindly and generous people. 

"If there was any doubt of the source of this great campaign fund, 
it is no longer a matter of suspicion, for Mr. Elihu Root, the former 
Secretary of War, franidy admitted last night that trusts and cor- 
porations were hea-^y contributors. He denied only that the total 
amount thus acquired or utilized was as large as in previous years. 
Moreover, the Republican candidate himself denies only that definite 
immunity from prosecution has been promised trusts for their assist- 
ance. He declares that he is merely to give them a 'square deal,' as 
the term may be interpreted not by the laws of the land, but by him- 
self. It is plain that when the time shall come to determine what 'a 
square deal' between the Government of the United States and the 
contributing trusts really is, the beneficiary of the generosity of the 
latter must either recognize their service or confess himself guilty of 
base ingratitude." 

JUDGE PARKER RECEIVED FROM ONE WHO KNEW THE 
NAMES OF THE FEW WHQ UNDERTOOK TO UNDERWRITE 
THE CAMPAIGN, BUT THE NAMES WERE GIVEN IN CONFI- 
DENCE, AND HE RESPECTED THAT CONFIDENCE. THE 
CHARGE WAS MADE BY HIM, NOT AT ALL WITH THE IDEA 
TPIAT IT WOULD INFLUENCE THE RESULT, BUT BECAUSE 
HE BELIEVED THAT SUCH PRACTICES MUST END OR THE 
REPUBLIC WILL SOON BE ONE IN NAME ONLY. THAT 
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT TO AROUSE PUBLIC 
INTEREST WAS BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN CLOSED, NOT 
AFTERWARD, WHEN IT COULD BE CHARGED THAT THE 
STING OF DEFEAT WAS HIS MOTIVE. SUCH A PUBLIC 
INTEREST AS SHOULD BRING ABOUT INVESTIGATION 



122 CORRUPTION AND SCANDALS. 

^ , .. _________ 

OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS OP INSURANCE COMPANIES, 
BANKS, TRUST COMPANIES, RAILROAD COMPANIES AND 
GIANT-PROTECTED INTERESTS, WAS HIS AIM. 



THE PROOF. 

On September 20, 1905, Mr. Jolin A. McCall, president of the 
New York Life Insurance Company, testified before the Legisla- 
tive Insurance Investigating Committee, and was examined by- 
Mr. Charles E. Hughes, counsel for the committee, regarding 
contributions made by the New York Life Insurance Company 
to the Republican National Committee during the Presidential 
campaign of 1904. On page 639, volume 1, of the testimony and 
proceedings had before that committee, will be found the follow- 
ing questions and answers, the same being questions asked by 
Mr. Hughes, and answers given to those questions by Mr. McCall: 

"Q. In connection with another matter which has received a good 
deal of attention, to wit: campaign eontribudons. The other day 
there was an entry shown of some $48,000 paid to Mr. Bliss for the 
Republican National Committee last fall. You had knowledge of that 
payment ? 

"A. I had full ivnowledge of it. 

"Q. And you approved it ? 

"A. I approved of it, and do now." 

Again, on October 10, 1905, Dr. Walter R. Gillette, vice-president 
of the Mutual Life Insurance Company, testifying before the 
same committee, examined by Mr. Hughes, gave the following 
testimony : 

"Q. Well, do you happen to know what contributions to any 
campaign funds of any party was made last year out of the moneys 
of the Mutual Life Insurance Company? 

"A. Yes. 

"Q. Please state what you know on that subject ? 

"A. We made a contribution to the National Republican Com- 
mittee. 

"Q. Of how much ? 

"A. I think it was — I think it was about $40,000." 

This testimony may be found upon pages 1351 and 1352, volume 
2, of the official proceedings had before the same committee. The 
amount of the contribution, however, was subsequently proven 
to be $.5.0,000. 

On November 14, 1905, Mr. James H. Hyde, vice-president of 
the Equitable Life Assurance Society, testified before the same 
committee in regard to campaign contributions made by his 
company. His testimony regarding this question may be found 
on page 2219 of the official report of proceedings, volume 3. He 
testified in part as follows: 

" * * * * The third purpose was political contributions. 
"Q. And what were they, so far as you were informed of them? 
"A. I know of only one of those, which was for the last Presidential 
campaign. 

"Q. In what amount? 
"A. Of $25,000. 



CORRUPTION AND SCANDALS. 123 



"Q, And to whom made? 

"A. Made to Mr. Bliss at his request through Mr. Frick. 

"Q. How did you become aware of the contribution? 

"A. Mr. Frick asked me for it, and I asked Mr. Alexander, and 
Mr. Alexander approved of the contribution. 

"Q. Upon what grounds did he suggest that such a contribution 
should be made by the Equitable? 

"A. He suggested that it was to the best interests to the Equitable 
and the best protection of the Society's assets that the Eepublican 
party should be re-elected and kept in power. 

"Q. Was any mention made by him of an earlier contribution 
made by the Society? 

"A. I have since learned that a contribution was made in the 
summer in my absence which I had nothing to do with. 

"Q. An amount in addition to the amount you have previously 
stated ? 

"A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. Do you know the amount ? 

"A. I have since learned the amount was $25,000. 

"Q. That made a total of $50,000 ? 

"A. Yes, sir." 

WHAT THE SEQUEL PROVES. 



The report of the Armstrong committee of the New York legis- 
lature, published since Mr. Roosevelt made these sweeping and 
ai)parently impassioned, but really crafty, denials, proves that 
Parker spoke the truth, and that Roosevelt was mistaken when 
he said the charge was "unqualifiedly and atrociously false." A 
Republican member of Congress, even from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Edward Morrill, summarized the matter so well in a speech de- 
livered in the House of Representatives, December 15, 1905 (Con- 
gressional Record, December 21, 1905), that some of his remarks 
are incorporated herewith. Mr. Morrill said: 

"As it is, nobody can feel safe, because nobody knows what these 
giants are doing. The reports which they have made to the State au- 
thorities (Republican officials) have been shown to be false, and the 
reports of the insurance superintendents are clearly worthless or 
worse. The Equitable Life made its own attorney, a gentleman named 
Pierce, State superintendent of insurance. The three great com- 
panies have combined in order to support a corrupt lobby at Albany. 
They have been giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to such men 
as Andrew Hamilton, A. C. Fields, W. S. Thummel and other lobbyists. 
The Equitable, according to the testimony, has paid $10,000 a year for 
a long time to Senator Piatt (Republican) for use in elections. The 
Mutual has on several occasions paid $10,000 to Senator Piatt for the 
same purposes. In the campaigns of 1896, 1900 and 1904 the Mutual, 
the Equitable, and New York Life, the Metropolitan, and the Pruden- 
tial contributed large sums to the Republican National Committee. 
The testimony of Messrs. Thummel, Perkins, McCall, Olyphant, Hege- 
man, Hon. Thomas C. Piatt, Hon. John F. Dryden and Hon. Chauncey 
M. Depew (Republican) discloses these facts. 

"These payments were not recorded in the hooks of the insurance 
companies. Neither were they reported to the authorities of any 
State in the sworn reports of these companies. Mr. Richard A. Mc- 
Curdy swore that if any contribution had been made by the Mutual to 
any New York State campaign committee he knew nothing about it. 
Senator Piatt in his own testimony contradicted this statement. Con- 
cerning such contributions. Senator Piatt said that he had received as 
contributions to the Republican State committee's campaign fund the 
sum of $10,000 a year for a period of ten or fifteen years from the 
Equitable Life Assurance Society. During the same period he received 



124 CORRUPTION AND SCANDALS. 

$10,000 a year for a number of years, but not every year, from the 
Mutual Life Insurance Company. The Senator explained that the 
contributions of the Equitable and the Mutual had always been sent 
him in cash by a messenger. When asked if he had ever solicited 
these contributions he said that he had not, but had talked with 
President McCurdy, of the Mutual, about funds. 

"On this point the questions by Mr. Hughes and the answers by 
Senator Piatt were as follows: 

"'Q. How did it happen that the Mutual Life contributed the 
money? Was it in pursuance of an understanding between yourself 
and Mr. McCurdy? — A. I simply asked him at various times when 
necessities were very great for money, and he said he would be very 
glad to subscribe.' 

" 'Q. This was for the state campaign ? — A. Yes, sir.* 

" 'Q. And Mr. McCurdy so understood it ? — A. He understood it, 
and could not understand it any other way, because I was not repre- 
senting the national campaign.' 

"Senator Piatt said that he had received a few contributions of 
$10,000 a year from Mr. John A. McCall, president of the New York 
Life Insurance Company, but had no personal knowledge as to whether 
or not the money came out of th^ funds o± the company or was a 
personal contribution from Mr. McCall. 

"I submit the questions and answers as to the motives which 
prompted these contributions: 

"'Q. SENATOR, WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WAS THE 
QUID PRO QUO OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS? DID YOU EVER 
UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMPANIES MIGHT EXPECT SOME- 
THING IN RETURN?— A. I SUPPOSED THAT THEY WOULD 
EXPECT MY INFLUENCE IN OPPOSITION TO ADVERSE LEGIS- 
LATION.' 

" *Q. Did they ever ask you to influence legislation ? — ^A. Never.' 

" 'Q. Could you have done so ? — A. No.' 

" 'Q. Then what service could you render ? — A. I suppose that they 
thought I might have some little influence with my party (Repub- 
lican) .' 

"The 'legal expenses' of the Mutual were $347,000 in 1903, $130,000 
in excess of 1902, when they were $216,000. For 1904 they were 
$459,000, in 1901, $243,000. In these four years the 'legal expenses' 
of the Mutual amounted to $1,265,000. Mr. Robert Olyphant, who is 
a member of its committee of expenditures, says that money for secret 
and confidential purposes is charged to the accoimt of 'legal expenses.' 

"Mr. Olyphant said on the witness stand October 10, 1905, that the 
Mutual Life had paid out $200,000 on vouchers of $25,000 each, in 
1903 and 1904, on account of 'private legal expenses.' 

"Mr. Robert A. Grannis, vice-president of the Mutual Life, testify- 
ing on the same day, said: 

" 'If money was necessary to protect the company against adverse 
legislation, there was no hesitation in laying out the requisite funds,' 

"Mr. Walter R. Gillette, vice-president of the Mutual Life, said that 
the general solicitor of the company could get whatever funds he 
wanted without giving any reason for it." 

Thummel testified that he had delivered to Chairman Babcock 
$5000 of the money of the Mutual Life Insurance Company for 
the use of the Republican Congressional campaign in 1904. 

George W. Perkins testified that he had given Chairman Bliss, 
of the Republican National Committee, between forty and fifty 
thousand dollars, and had been reimbursed by the company after 
the election, so that the contribution did not appear on the com- 
pany's books. The New York Life, the Mutual and the Equitable 
contributed $50,000 each to the Republican National Committee 
in 1904. The Prudential Life, Senator Dryden's company, also 
contributed very largely. The contributions were, as Judge Parker 
charged— 



CORRUPTION AND SCANDALS. 125 

"moneys belonging to their stockholders ; moneys not given in the open 
and charged upon the books as moneys paid for political purposes, but 
hidden away by false bookkeeping." 

No man can honestly doubt or deny that the railroad com- 
panies, banks, trust companies and other great corporations con- 
tributed in the same surreptitious and unlawful manner to the 
Republican campaign fund of 1904, or that, in making the con- 
tributions, they all thought that Bliss and Cortelyou, as well as 
Piatt, "might have had some influence with the party," and would 
exert that influence in the interest of the contributors. Nor can 
it be doubted that political influence was exerted to keep Bliss 
and Cortelyou off the witness stand in the insurance investiga- 
tion. Why has not President Roosevelt required Bliss and Cor- 
telyou to make restitution of the moneys thus unlawfully received 
by them? Why did he not urge the passage of the Tillman bill to 
prohibit contributions by corporations to party campaign funds 
in the future? Why did he not urge the passage of the Tillman 
resolution for the investigation of contributions by national 
banks to party corruption funds? 

Republican ex-Postmaster-General John Wanamaker says: 
"I have been a Republican since 1860, but my party stinks in 
the nostrils of decent men. If the people are willing to uphold 
such corruption as many of the leaders practice and to condone 
their dishonesty, God help the country." 

General Wanamaker thus spoke several years ago before 
the recent disclosures of corruption and fraud in his own State 
(Pennsylvania), and New York, both governed by Republican 
Governors and Ofllcers — and laws made by Republican legisla- 
tures. 

GOOD FOR THE SOUL. 

HOWEVER DESIRABLE IT WAS TO DEFEAT THE EREE 
SILVER AGITATION IN 1896, DID THE END JUSTIFY THE 
MEANS EMPLOYED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT DEFEAT? IT IS 
iTOT TOO INfUCH TO SAY THAT THE MONEY SPENT IN 1896 
TO PREVENT THE ELECTION OF BRYAN RESULTED IN PO- 
LITICAL DEBAUCHERY, SUCH AS WAS NEVER BEFORE EX- 
PERIENCED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND FROM WHICH 
THE POLITICS AND BUSINESS OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE 
NOT EVEN YET RECOVERED. IT IS NOT FAR FROM THE 
TRUTH TO SAY THAT THE COUNTRY HAS SUFFERED MORE 
BY REASON OF THE POLITICAL CORRUPTION OF THE 1896 
CAMPAIGN THAN IT WOULD HAVE SUFFERED FROM THE 
TRIUMPH OF FREE SILVER, LAMENTABLE AS THAT WOULD 
HAVE BEEN. BRYAN'S TRIUMPH OF FREE SILVER WOULD 
HAVE GIVEN THE MARKETS A TERRIBLE SHOCK, BUT 
BRYAN COULD NOT HAVE REALLY DONE MUCH HARM IN 
A PRACTICAL WAY, AND THE COUNTRY WOULD HAVE MADE 
A SPEEDY RECOVERY FROM THE DISASTER, BUT IT WILL 
TAKE MANY YEARS TO RECOVER FROM THE EFFECTS OF 
THE POLITICAL DEBAUCHERY WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT 
ABOUT BY THE ABUSE OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PO- 
LITICAL CAMPAIGNS.— T7ALL STREET NEWS. 

But the stream of corruption continues from year to year, from 
election to election — and always from the same locality and same 
fountain head — Republican states. Republican strongholds, under 
Republican laws. 



126 PANAMA SUPPLIES. 



PANAMA SUPPLIES. 

MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION'S ACT— FAVOR PUR- 
CHASES IN OPEN MARKET. 

The Committee on Resolutions of the National Association of 
Manufacturers, which met in Atlanta, May 16-18, 1905, by a "ris- 
ing vote, rejected" a proposition calling for such a law, as shown 
by the following: 

The President — 'We have another resolution from the committee. 

The Secretary — ^The chairman of the Committee on Resolutions 
moves the adoption of the following : 

Whereas, It is reported by The Associated Press that the Isthmian 
Canal Commission has decided (Washington, D. C, May 15, 1905) to 
purchase materials, etc., in connection with the construction of the 
Panama Canal from foreign countries and foreign producers; and, 

Whereas, The construction of the Panama Canal is an American 
enterprise, by the American Government, to be paid for with American 
money, 

Resolved, That the National Association of Manufacturers in annual 
convention assembled earnestly protests against the reported policy of 
purchase of foreign materials, etc., and requests that American mate- 
rials produced by American workmen be used exclusively in connection 
with said enterprise, excepting, of course, such materials as are not 
produced in this country. 

A leading member (Mr. Post) of the Association, in opposing 
this resolution, said: 

"I do not propose to take issue one way or the other on this ques- 
tion, but I want to call your attention to this fact, that if we pass 
that resolution, we, as manufacturers, must remember that we are not 
all of America. America is for Americans, but we are not all there 
is of America, and we are asking the United States Government and all 
of the people in America — some eighty millions of them — to tax them- 
selves in excess for our PARTICULAR BENEFIT." (Applause.) 

Other speeches were made pro and con. 

The President — The , question is called for. Those in favor of the 
motion will make it known by saying "aye;" those opposed "no." The 
"noes" seem to have it. 

Mr. Seabury (who favored the resolution) said: "Let us have a 
riflng vote on that." 

On a rising vote the resolution was rejected. 



PANAMA SUPPLIES. 121 



FOREIGN CEMENT BOUGHT. 

AMERICAN CEMENT 37 CENTS HIGHER THAN FOREIGN 

CEMENT. 

SECRETARY BISHOP'S LETTER. 

Washington, D. C, April 16, 1906. — Sir — ^In the absence of 
Mr. Shonts, I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter 
of the 16th inst., transmitting a communication from the Hon. Wm. 
Lorimer, dated the 10th inst., inclosing a letter from the Chicago 
Portland Cement Company, bearing date April 2, 1906, with reference 
to the last purchase of Portland cement by the Isthmian Canal Com- 
mission on October 7th, last. 

When the lot of cement in question was purchased a number of bids 
were received on American cement and a number also on foreign 
cement. THE LOWEST BID RECEIVED ON AJ^IERICAN CEMENT 
WAS 37 CENTS PER BARREL HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST 
BID ON FOREIGN CEMENT. AFTER FULL INVESTIGATION 
AND TEST THE LOWEST BID WAS ACCEPTED, AND THE 
CEMENT FURNISHED ON THE CONTRACT HAS PROVEN TO 
BE VERY SATISFACTORY. AS THE QUANTITY OF CEMENT 
PURCHASED AT THAT TIME WAS 20,000 BARRELS, YOU WILL 
NOTE THAT THIS LOT OF CEMENT WOULD HAVE COST 
$7,400 MORE IF THE USE OF FOREIGN CEMENT HAD BEEN 
PROHIBITED. 

The statements made in the communication from the Chicago 
Portland Cement Company as to the desirability of purchasing 
materials needed in the construction of the canal as far as possible 
in the United States are fully appreciated, and where prices have 
been anything like equal home concerns have been favored. 

OPEN MARKETS A WISE POLICY. 

I think you will agi'ee,- however, that in the case of the lot of 
cement in question the commission would not have been justified in 
paying $7,400 more for American cement than for foreign cement, 
particularly in view of the fact that there was no doubt as to the 
quality of the foreign cement being fully equal to that offered by the 
lowest bidder on American cement. 

Very respectfully, 

Joseph Bucklin Bishop, Secretary. 
Hon. a. J. Hopkins, United States Senate, Washington, D. G. 

— (American Economist, May 4, 1906.) 

The Secretary of War (Taft) stated to Congress that he had 
saved a great deal of money for the government by purchasing 
supplies from Australia and other foreign countries for the 
use of our army and officials operating in the Philippine Islands; 
thiit he had also saved money by purchasing some of the Panama 
supplies in the open markets of the world, and thought it was 
wise to do so. But the Republicans, put and maintained in power 
by the Steel Trust, Cement Trust and other trusts which furnish 
building material, would not have the law that way, and on June 
25, 1906, over the protest of the Democrats, the Republicans 
passed this Joint Resolution, No. 60: 

REPUBLICANS VOTE TO GIVE TRUSTS CONTROL. 

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States in Congress assembled. That purchases of material and equip- 
ment for use in the construction of the Panama Canal shall be 



128 PANAMA SUPPLIES. 

restricted to articles of domestic production and manufacture, from 
the lowest responsible bidder, unless the President shall, in any case, 
deem the bids or tenders therefor to be extortionate or unreasonable." 
Approved June 25, 1906. 

By this resolution the purchase of supplies for the Panama 
Canal is now by virtue of the vote of the Republicans of both the 
Senate and House, compelled to be made of the Trusts and Com- 
bines, unless their bids for material are "extortionate or unrea- 
sonable." What is extortionate or unreasonable is left for the 
President to decide and not to competitive bids in the open mar- 
kets of the world, as justice to the taxpayers demands. How 
can the President or anyone know a given price is "extortionate 
or unreasonable" unless he has competitive bids? How can the 
President well know what a foreign concern will furnish a given 
article for unless the foreigners are allowed to bid? 

The Senate, before adopting the joint resolution No. 60, re- 
jected, by a party vote, the amendment of Senator Mallory to 
strike out the words "extortionate or." The Senate also refused, 
by a party vote, the substitute proposed by Senator Carmack, 
which read as follows: 

"That in all the contracts for the purchase of material and equip- 
ment for use in the construction of the Panama Canal preference 
shall be given to articles of domestic production or manufacture, 
conditions of quality and price being equal." 

The determination of the Republican Senators to compel the 
President and the War Department to purchase supplies for the 
Panama Canal of the Trusts and Combines is further shown by 
the text of the original resolution as recommended by the Secre- 
tary of War, Mr. Taft, which was as follows: 

"Resolved, etc., That purchase of material and equipment for use in 
the Construction of the Panama Canal shall be restricted to articles 
of domestic production and manufacture unless the President deem 

THE BID THEBEFOR TO BE UNREASONABLE." 

It will be noticed that the words "extortionate or" and the 
sentence following the word unreasonable were added by the 
Senate Finance Committee. 

The Shipbuilding Trust and the Steel Trust were evidently the 
main levers that moved the Republican members of Congress to 
force through this resolution, which compels the Panama Com- 
mission to pay $35,425 each more for 100 dredges, or $3,542,400, 
that being the number stated that will he purchased. 

Two ships had already been purchased for the use of the Canal 
Commission before the above resolution was adopted by Congress, 
and the price paid indicates that the President at that time had 
backed down from his position of "buying in the cheapest mar- 
ket" under the extreme pressure from the trust magnates and 
protected monopolists and the other organized protectionists. 

Two foreign-built ships of 6,000 tons capacity each had been 
offered to the Canal Commission for $750,000 each, but two Ameri- 
can-built ships were purchased of 5,700 tons capacity for $1,300,000. 



r 



PANAMA SUPPLIES. 129 



Senator Stone, of Missouri, said in the Senate (see Cong. Record, 
June 1, 1906, p. 7904) : 

"These two American ships, kno^v^l as the Havana and Mexico, were 
purchased at the price named of the New York and Cuban Mail 
Steamship Company of New Yoric, commonly known as 'The Ward 
Line.' They liad been in commission and in active service for from 
seven to eight years. Last December I had occasion here in the 
Senate to refer to the purchase of these ships and to comment on 
the transaction. At that time I called attention to the fact — for it 
is a fact that no Senator here will dispute — that it is a rule, based 
on experience, for shipowners to write off 5 per cent, of the cost 
value of the ship for every year it is in active service. In addition 
to that, it is generally agreed that the average life of a ship's boiler 
plant is about eight years, and that the boiler plant represents about 
L5 per cent, of the total value of the steamer. I called attention to 
the fact that these ships, the Havana and the Mexico, had been in 
active service for from seven to eight years, as shown by the public 
records. Upon the strength of those facts I then contended, as I 
now contend, that the real market value of these ships at the time 
the Government purchased them could not have been more than about 
60 per cent, of their value when new. In the very nature of things, 
tested by whatever rule, there must have been a depreciation of from 
35' to 40 per cent, in the value of those ships. But at that time I 
was not able to give the original cost of the ships; that is, the price 
paid the builders for constructing them. Now, however, I am able 
to supply that information. 

"At the hearings had before the Merchant Marine Commission 
during the spring and summer of 1905 Mr. Alfred G. Smith ap- 
peared as a witness. See his testimony, volume 1, of the hearings. 
He tctilied that he was secretary and treasurer of the Ward Line, 
and he gave a list of the ships constituting the fleet of that line, with 
the dates of their construction. On page 131, volume 1, of the hear- 
ings, Mr. Smith testified: 

" 'We have two vessels of 5,700 tons each. They are 16-knot ships.* 

"These were the Havana and the Mexico. Senator Lodge inquired 
as to how much they cost, and Mr. Smith answered : 

"' 'In the vicinity of $550,000 apiece; perhaps $600,000.' 

"So we have it directly from the lips of one of the chief officials of 
the company, for Avhoni the ships were built and who sold them to 
the Government, that they cost originally in the vicinity of $550,000 
each, or possibly, he said, as much as $600,000 each. Here, then, we 
have an example of how the President kept his promise, so vocifer- 
ously and repeatedly made, to guard the Treasury and the people 
against the inroads of plunderers. 

"Two English ships of larger tonnage were offered for $750,000, 
but the opportunity to buy them was abandoned under pressure and 
two American ships of lighter tonnage were purchased for $1,300,000, 
which was from $100,000 to $200,000 more than the ships cost the 
owners when they were built. 

"Be it also remembered that under the rule universally observed by 
shipo^^^lers of writing oft^ a percentage of the value of a vessel for 
each year of active service these ships were necessarily worth from 
35 to 40 per cent, less the day the Government bought them than 
they were the day the Cramps, who built them, delivered them to 
their owners." 

OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED. 

In Senate Document 261, part one, there is a list of contracts 
aggregating $1000 or more entered into by the Isthmian Canal 
Commission from February 1, 1905, to October 31, 1905. That 
document shows that 290 contracts were entered into during the 
nine months named of the total amount of $6,124,658.21. A large 



130 PANAMA SUPPLIES. 



proportion of these contracts were supplied by the steel and other 
trusts, and for some unexplained reason the price at which the 
articles were furnished is not given in the report probably because 
the price exceeded what the price the same trusts were selling 
similar articles atroad. 

There is also part two of the same document which contains a 
list of 112 other purchases of the Canal Commission from Novem- 
ber 1, 1905, to March 7, 1906, which in the aggregate amount to 
$893,387.74. 

Taking these 13 months' purchases of supplies as what will be 
required on the average, gives the annual purchases for supplies 
as $6,478,196.28 without including the ships and dredges and other 
heavy machinery and small items costing less than $1000. As 
it is expected that the canal will take at least ten years to build 
the materials will cost exceeding $64,000,000. As the difference 
in the price here and the price abroad on such supplies is on the 
average about 40 per cent, in consequence of the protection to 
the trusts, it will be seen that the increased expenditures under 
this Republican policy will be at least $38,400,000 and the 
increased cost of the dredges and ships, added to the above would 
make the total extra cost exceed $40,000,000. And that would not 
allow anything for the purchase of more ships, and dredges. 

The Democratic position on the purchase of these supplies was 
to leave with the Isthmian Canal Commission the power to buy 
supplies in the cheapest market and to confine their purchases to 
American products if the price does not exceed the standard 
export price. The Republicans claimed there was no such thing 
as a standard of export prices, but the testimony of Mr. Shonts, 
the President of the Commission, and Mr. Ross, the purchasing 
agent of the Commission, shows that there is a standard of export 
prices. That testimony is as follows: 

Mr. Shonts — "I would favor buying in the open market for the 
reasons Mr. Ross has stated. I think the fact that we have that 
privilege enables us to get our American made material .cheaper. I 
think that the steel companies, to illustrate, give us the benefit of 
their export prices." 

Mr. Ross — "There is one other thing that I might have said. I 
do not know positively, as I said a while ago, thSLt the United States 
steel export companies, for instance, would take advantage of us if 
we didn't have the right of foreign competition, but they do put our 
business on an export basis now. For instance, on steel rails — ^we 
have bought steel rails during the last year for $26.40 a ton, delivered 
alongside a vessel at Baltimore, while the rate that they usually 
charge the railroads of this country was $28 at the mill." (See Con- 
gressional Record, June 16, 1906, page 8909.) 

That evidence also shows that foreign competition kept the 
steel trust and the other combines to reasonable prices, somewhere 
near their regular export prices, but now the law has been changsd 
to compel the purchase of supplies in the United States, unless 
the President decides the price is "extortionate or unreasonable" 
will allow the trusts to advance prices to the point where the 
President should declare they are extortionate. How high the 
prices will be, before the President decides they are extortionate 
ii a matter of speculation and In view of the decision of President 



PANAMA SUPPLIES. 131 

Roosevelt to "stand pat" like the other trust-favoring Republicans 
of Congress probably never will be decided and the trusts will be 
allowed to charge "all the traffic will bear." 

In less than three months after this pro-trust resolution was 
signed by the President, what happened? 



BIDS FOR ENGINES TO GO TO CANAL 

BALDWIN LOCOMOTIVE WORKS' PRICE $458,600 FOR 
FORTY MOGULS— ONLY ONE RAIL BIDDER— SUB- 
SIDIARY OF STEEL TRUST MAKES PRICE . 
OF $29.45 PER TON F. O. B. 
BALTIMORE. 

Bids were opened this morning at the offices of the Isthmian Canal 
Commission for forty Mogul engines and for 5000 tons of steel rails 
for use on the Isthmian Canal. 

The Baldwin Locomotive Works, of Philadelphia, was the lowest 
bidder on the engines, offering to deliver them at Colon for $458,600. 
The bid of the Lima Locomotive Machine Company, Lima, Ohio, was 
$475,200 and that of the American Locomotive Company, of New 
York, $526,000. 

There Avas only one bidder offering to supply the steel rails. That 
was the U. S. Steel Products Export Company, of New York, a sub- 
sidiary of the Steel Trust. Its bid was $147,250, which is at the 
rate of $29.45 per ton, delivered f. o. b. cars at Baltimore. An alter- 
nate bid, for delivery at Colon, raises the price by $16,250. THIS 
BID IS CONSIDERED EXTREMELY HIGH, BUT BEING THE 
ONLY ONE SUBMITTED MAY BE ACCEPTED.— Washington 
Times, September 6, 1906. 

SHIP SUBSIDIES AND HIGH TARfFF. 

John Roach, protectionist ship builder, to a special committee 
of the House in 1869, said: 

"America has lost her commerce, and what has she obtained in ex- 
change for it ? Simply the right of a few men to charge $9.00 per ton 
in gold on the importation of pig iron. Pig iron is the basis of all 
other metals connected with the making and repairing of ships. There 
has been a revolution in shipbuilding, and iron is the material from 
which they are now built. The high cost of iron produced by the 
tariff upon it is one of the principal difficulties our commerce has to 
contend with. I did not come here to ask a bounty. I came here 
to tell you that while all other articles of American produce are pro- 
tected to a great extent there is no protection for American ships. 
If Congress will take off all the duties from American iron, reducing 
it to the price of foreign iron, then we are prepared to compete with 
foreign shipbuilders. The labor question is mistaken; we are pre- 
pared to meet that difficulty and to ask no further legislation on the 
subject." 

Mr. Morrill, protectionist Republican, asked Mr. C. H. Cramp as 
to the rate of duty imposed on shipbuilding material and Mr. 
Cramp replied: 

"About 40 per cent., and if our shipbuilders could be relieved from 
that, they could compete successfully with foreign shipbuilders. The 



132 PANAMA SUPPLIES. 

difference in tlie cost of labor would be overcome by the superiority 
of American mechanics. Wooden ships will no longer be built, since 
iron ships are superior in every respect." 

Senator Chandler, of Michigan, in 1872, said: 

"It is desirable to own iron ships, very desirable, and I hope to see 
the day when we shall have our old supremacy in shipping, but it 
never will be done in the world by subsidies. It is not the subsidized 
lines of Great Britain that pay the largest returns. * * » You 
will never restore your flag to the ocean by subsidies, I care not how 
great you may make them; you may increase your subsidies to $10,000,- 
000 a year and you will not restore your flag." 

Senator Morrill, of Vermont, in 1872, said: 

"Is it practicable to recall our shipping? I think it is, and by the 
simplest process. NOT A DOLLAR OF SUBSIDIES. GIVE US 
CHEAP MATERIALS, AND WE WILL DO IT. Give us the ground 
on which we stand, so that we shall have our materials just as cheap 
as they can be afforded elsewhere, and then all these shipyards and 
all that skilled labor will be at work at once; and you will find that 
we shall restore the balance of the shipping interests on the ocean, 
that now stands against us." 

Senator Sherman, May 4, 1872, said: 

"SINCE WE CANNOT BUILD THESE VESSELS WITHIN 20 
OR 30 PER CENT. OF THE COST IN ENGLAND, WHY NOT 
ADMIT THEM FREE? WHY NOT ADMIT THEM DUTY FREE, 
RAISE THE AMERICAN FLAG UPON THEM, PUT AMERICAN 
OFFICERS UPON THEIR DECKS, AND HAVE AMERICAN LINES 
INSTEAD OF BRITISH LINES ? Why, sir, if that bill should pass, 
authorizing foreign ships when owned by American citizens, to be 
used for the present, for three years under the American flag, one- 
half of the lines between New York and England would be xlmeriean 
lines in sixty days." 

The present Speaker of the House, Mr. Cannon, February 28, 
1879, denounced ship subsidies. 
He then said: 



"Now, what is this proposition? Oh, it is to give John Roach 
$3,000,000 as a practical gratuity and to charge that as a tax on the 
cotton, and provisions, and tobacco, and wheat, and grain, and bread- 
stuffs, and oil that we produce. What for? To enable somebody to 
sell something that he has made, which it cost $1.43 to make here, 
while it costs only a dollar to make it in Europe, and both manufac- 
turers have to go to the same market, namely Brazil. WHY, 
GENTLEMEN, IF YOU HAD A BUSINESS AGENT WHO PRO- 
POSED TO DO YOUR PRIVATE BUSINESS IN THAT WAY, YOU 
WOULD PUT HIM INTO A LUNATIC ASYLUM OR SWEAR THAT 
HE WAS A THIEF OR AN IDIOT AND DISCHARGE HIM. 

"Commencing in the year 1847 down to the present time (1879) act 
after act has been passed for a similar purpose (postal subsidies). I 
hold in my hand the official statements of the Secretary of the Navy 
and the Postmaster-General, which show payments of subsidies to 
the amount, in round numbers, of $14,500,000 to steamship lines during 
the period from the year 1848 to 1858. I hold in my hand a statement 
that shows subsidies to the amount of $7,000,000, in round numbers, 
since that time, making over $21,000,000 that have been paid out of 
the Treasury for the purpose of establishing steamship lines — 
$7,000,000 would buy all the steamships engaged in commerce that sail 



PANAMA SUPPLIES. 133 

under the American flag on every ocean in the world — and more than 
tlmt; the subsidizing of these steamship lines, from the 'Collins' line 
in 1852 up to the present time, has bankrupted every prominent man 
that has favored it." 

UNITED STATES PREDOMINANT IN IRON AND STEEL ' 
MAKING. 

President McKinley submitted January 29, 1901, to Congress an 
official "Review of the world's commerce," which at page 22 states: 

"The most striking fact in our export development is the remark- 
able growth of the foreign demand for our iron and steel, our exports 
amounting to nearly $130,000,000 in 1900 against $32,000,000 in 1895. 
In an article in the New York Evening Post of January 12, 1901, 
Mr. Andrew Carnegie says the United States has not only supplied 
its own wants, 'but is competing to supply the wants of the world, 
not only in steel, but in the thousand and one articles of which steel 
is the chief component part,' and expresses the opinion that the 
increasing demand from the world at large 'can be met only by the 
United States.' 

"THE INFLUENCE OF OUR STEEL-MAKING CAPACITY, 
ADDS MR. CARNEGIE, 'MUST BE MARVELOUS, FOR THE 
NATION WHICH MAKES THE CHEAPEST STEEL HAS THE 
OTHER NATIONS AT ITS FEET AS FAR AS MANUFACTURING 
IS CONCERNED IN MOST OF ITS BRANCHES. THE CHEAPEST 
STEEL MEANS THE CHEAPEST SHIPS, THE CHEAPEST 
MACHINERY, THE CHEAPEST THOUSAND AND ONE ARTICLES 
OF WHICH STEEL IS THE BASE.'" (Review of the World's 
Commerce, 1900.) 

CHEAPNESS OF AMERICAN GOODS. 

"It is the relative cheapness of American steel that has given it 
pre-eminence, and it is the same with other products that are winning 
their way abroad. Economy of production is the master key that 
unlocks for us markets that seemed a little while ago to be inexorably 
closed. This economy of production implies not merely low prices 
to the foreign consumer, but a greater degree of excellence, a superior 
adaption to his wants. As he has been pointed out in the Reviews, 
as well as elsewhere, the American workingman, though receiving 
higher wages, produces, with labor saving machinery, at a lower unit 
of cost, and his greater application and ingenuity enable him to avail 
himself effectively of the most recent inventions and appliances for 
improving the quality of his special line of v/ork. The American 
factory system is highly organized and more efficient than any other, 
and if our export trade v/ere as well developed, there would be little 
to fear." (Review of the World's Commerce, 1900.) 

With the "cheapest steel and iron" in the world, the ship trust 
still cries for "subsidy." With thousands of men, widows and 
orphans begging Congress, as they have for years, for the payment 
of their claims against the Government, many of which are just, 
a deaf ear is turned to them, but not to the ship builders — ^backed 
by millions. 



134 PROPOSED SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 



PROPOSED SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 

The favorite measure of the Roosevelt administration is the 
ship subsidy bill (S. 529). This bill passed the Senate February 
4, 1906, 38 Republicans voting for it and 23 Democrats and 4 
Republicans against it. (See yea-and-nay votes in the Senate 
elsewhere in this volume.) The word subsidy is not used in the 
title of the bill, because the Constitution does not authorize sub- 
sidies. But the bill is entitled "A bill to promote the national 
defense, to create a force of naval volunteers, to establish A^meri- 
can ocean mail lines to foreign markets to promote commerce, and 
to provide revenue from tonnage.^* 

When this bill was under consideration in the Senate, the 
last clause of the title — "to provide a revenue from tonnage" — 
was stricken out, because the Senate has no right to originate 
bills for raising revenue. The clause "to establish American 
ocean mail lines to foreign markets," might also have been 
stricken out with equal propriety; for Congress has no power to 
do anything of that sort, any more than it has to establish post- 
offices in foreign countries to handle American merchandise. The 
same may also be said of the clause "to promote the national 
defense," for Congress has no power to do that by subsidizing 
private corporations in time of peace. Neither has it the power 
to create a force of naval volunteers in time of peace. 

But the real purpose of the bill was not disclosed by its title. 
Its object was the "legalized robbery" of the masses for the 
benefit of a few persons engaged in the shipping business, 
especially the steamship trust, who had furnished money to Mr. 
Hanna and his associates in 1896 to help elect the Republican 
ticket. Indeed, Mr. Hanna is responsible for the whole scheme. 
It was originated under his leadership in the Fifty-sixth Congress. 
The Congressional Record for December 12, 1900, vol. 33, p. 789, 
shows how the matter was started in the House of Representa- 
tives. In relation to the Hanna-Payne bill of that year, the 
following extract from the Record is interesting: 

"Mr. Richardson — I think, Mr. Speaker, the matter I present is 
one of privilege — one which affects the integrity of the proceedings 
of the House. I hold in my hand what purports to be a bill. It is 
in the form of a bill — ^that is, the first portion of it — and it is 
indorsed 'H. R. 64. A bill to promote the commerce and increase the 
foreign trade of the United States, and to provide auxiliary cruisers, 
transports, and seamen for Government use when necessary.' 

"It purports to have been introduced on the 4th day of December, 
1899, and to have been referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries, and ordered to be printed. 

"The first few pages of this paper is in the form of a bill. The 
latter pages — four pages — are in different type, and an argument, a 
partisan argument, in support of the bill. After the conclusion of 
the bill there are four pages of partisan arguments and facts. It is 
made up in part of statements purporting to show the effect of the bill, 
which I controvert, and M^hich every member, or almost every member, 
on this side of the House would controvert. But whether on this side 
or that side, Mr. Speaker, and whether true or false, those statements 
and arguments have no place in a bill. Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, 
that the rule^ liay^ been grossly violated. I submit that this paper 



PROPOSED SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 135 

is not frankable by law, and any member of this House or of the other 
House Avho has sent out this paper is guilty of having violated the 
postal law. It is no part of the Congressional Record; it is not a 
bill; the words used, or printed, have never been spoken upon the 
floor, so far as I know, and the paper is not frankable by law. 

"Mr. Cooper of Texas — Who is the mover of the bill? 

"Mr. Richardson — I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should be 
taken from the files, and if the gentleman desires to introduce the bill, 
let it be introduced as all other bills are prepared, presented, and 
introduced in this House. I make the point of order, first, that the 
paper should be suppressed — it is not a bill — and, failing in that, I 
shall move to strike it from the files and have it destroyed. 

"Mr. Burke of Texas — Who introduced the bill? 

"Mr. Richardson — The gentleman from New York, Mr. Payne." 

The Speaker sustained the point of order, and the bill was 
reprinted and re-referred. 

The same bill was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Frye under 
the same title (S. 727) and was debated and amended at the 
second session, but failed to pass. 

In the Fifty-seventh Congress the bill was again introduced in 
both Houses, but failed; and the same thing happened in the 
Fifty-eighth Congress. But near the end of the Fifty-eighth 
Congress a bill was passed enacting the Merchant Marine Com- 
mission, composed of five Senators and five members of the 
House; four commissioners, two from each house, being Demo- 
crats. About the beginning of the Fifty-ninth Congress, a new 
bill, differing materially in its title, as well as in its provisions, 
was introduced. It passed the Senate, as shown, but failed in 
the House. This new bill was prepared by the majority members 
of the Merchant Marine Commission, and has the earnest endorse- 
ment of the administration, which has failed to prosecute the 
steel trust and its annex, the shipbuilding interests. 

A fair idea of this subsidy proposition may be obtained from 
the speech of Mr. Spight, Democrat, of Mississippi (Congressional 
Record for June 27, page 9601). He is a member of the House 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the Merchant 
Marine Commission. Mr. Spight, in part, said: 

"If no other good was accomplished by it, the Merchant Marine 
Commission of 1904 aided very materially in driving from cover the 
gigantic steel trust, which teas systematically rohhing the American 
people for its own enrichment. I remember with what horror the 
'stand-patters' on the Commission heard witness after witness of the 
highest respectability and greatest opportunities tell how American 
steel was delivered in foreign yards at prices far below those charged 
American consumers by the same manufacturers for the same products. 
I well remember that M^hen this statement was first made the dis- 
tinguished chairman of the Commission, Senator Gallinger, of New 
Hampshire, said: 

" 'I WANT TO SAY, WHAT I THINK I AM PRIVILEGED TO 
SAY AS CHAIRMAN OF THIS COI^IMISSION, THAT IF THE 
SITUATION IS AS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IT IS A GREAT 
OUTRAGE.' 

" 'MR. WALLACE— WE HAVE THOUGHT SO FOR SOME TIME, 
AND WE HAVE THOUGHT THAT IN SOME WAY IT OUGHT TO 
BE REMEDIED.' 

"The same facts were stated by many other men of equally high 
character, notably by Mr. G. W, Dickey, superintendent of the Union 
Iron Works of San Francisco, the largest shipbuilding plant on the 
Pacific Coast. He told what he saw a»4 liaew, and neither Mx, Gary, 



136 PROPOSED SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 

of the steel trust, nor anybody else has ever denied or questioned the 
accuracy of Mr. Dickey's statement. He told the Commission at San 
Francisco in August, 1904, that the steel mills in this country were 
favoring the foreigner. He said, amongst other things : 

" 'IN 1900 I WAS GOING THROUGH A SHIPYARD IN DUNDEE, 
SCOTLAND, AND THEY WERE BUILDING A VESSEL ALMOST 
A DUPLICATE OF THE CALIFORNIA, THAT WE WERE BUILD- 
ING HERE AT THE SAME TIME, AND THEIR MATERIAL WAS 
BEING LANDED THERE FROM A VESSEL FROM NEW YORK, 
FURNISHED BY CARNEGIE & CO., WHO WERE FURNISHING 
THE MATERIAL FOR THE CALIFORNIA. THEY WERE PAY- 
ING £7 15s. 8d. PER TON. WE WERE PAYING £10 9s. 2d. IT 
WAS SUPPLIED BY THE SAME PEOPLE AND THE DISTANCE 
TRANSPORTED WAS ABOUT THE SAME.' 

"These prices vi^hen reduced to our currency made a difference of 
about $13.80 against the American builder. It has been estimated by 
expert shipbuilders that a vessel of 8000 tons, which is now only 
medium in size, will require about 3500 tons of steel. At the rate 
of difference given by Mr. Dickie the American builder would pay 
to the steel trust nearly $50,000 more for the material in his ship 
than the foreigner paid for his. It is a misnomer to call this a "profit," 
because the steel was sold at a profit to the foreigner. It is a rob- 
bery under the guise of law, and the men engaged in this nefarious 
business are among the most persistent advocates of subsidy legis- 
lation." 

Further on, he said: 



"I here offer an editorial clipping from a New York daily, The 
Press, of the 7th of May of this year : 

" 'AH records in the exports of iron and steel material through New 
York and other Atlantic seaboard points were eclipsed last month 
when close on to 80,000 tons were consigned to almost every part of 
the civilized world. The heaviest increase was made in the shipment 
of steel billets, upward of 35,000 tons having gone abroad during 
April, as compared with 24,000 tons exported during the previous 
month. THEY ARE SOLD HERE FOR EXPORT AT A PRICE 
AROUND $18 AT THE INFILLS, WHEREAS THE EXISTING QUO- 
TATION FOR BILLETS FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION IS $27.' 

"It has been shown by recent testimony before the committee that 
the ocean freight on steel is about $2 per ton, which would make it 
cost $20 per ton delivered in foreign ports, against $27 to domestic 
purchasers. This difference of $7 per ton makes the comfortable 
-^um of $245,000 extorted from the American consumer hy the steel 
trust in the month of April on the item of steel 'billets shipped abroad 
from Atlantic ports alone. At the same ratio for one year this would 
amount to $2,740,000. This robbery of the American was going on at 
the very tim.e when the witnesses of the steel trust were asking us 
to believe that the prices in Europe and America are the same and 
that steel is not sold more cheaply for export than for home use. 
Now, what reliance can we place on the evidence of such witnesses 
in any other statements they have made? There is an old Latin 
maxim familiar to every lawyer, 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,' 
which fits this case.' 

"I haven't seen nor heard of any denial of this statement of the 
the Press on the 8th of May, and received in reply the following state- 
large headlines, and is presumed to have been made with a full knowl- 
edge of the facts. But in order to verify it I wrote to the editor of 
the Press on the 8th of May, and received in reply the following state- 
ment, furnished by the gentleman who regularly supplies the paper 
with such information, and whose reliability is unquestioned. I can 
say that the price in England (Wales) yesterday for steel billets was 
$22 a ton. As the freight between the mills here and Wales is around 
$4 a ton, American billets must be sold at $18 for export, as specified 
in the news story, in order to meet competition on the other side. 



PROPOSED SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 137 

The selling of billets for export at the price of $18, or around that 
figure, in order to meet the market conditions on the other side has 
been going on for a considerable time. Notwithstanding the contra- 
dictions of the steel trust officials, any man posted in the metal 
trades here knows the fact of the discrepancy between the export 
and domestic prices of billets, rails and, in fact, all iron and steel 
material. 

"Mr. Hanscom, of the Eastern Shipbuilding Company, New Lon- 
don, Conn., who appeared before us to advocate this subsidy legisla- 
tion, stated that two or tliree years ago he had information that steel 
was shipped from here and landed on the Clyde at $19 or $20 a ton, 
when it was being sold to domestic purchasers for $32 to $38 a ton. 

"Notwithstanding this state of alTairs, which Senator Gallinger de- 
nounced as an outrage, nothing has been done to remedy this evil, and 
every proposition to revise the tariff schedules which makes possible 
this outrage upon the American people is met by the 'stand-patters' 
with the stereotyped declaration that there is neither necessity nor 
demand for revision, and the robbery proceeds unchecked and un- 
abashed. Gentlemen can not protect themselves by the comforting 
assurance that these facts are not established. They are proven by 
the testimony of a crowd of disinterested witnesses, and are denied 
by no one except the 'defendant.' Any jury of honest men in any 
court on such evidence would write a verdict of 'guilty' in two 
minutes. You say: 'When the tariff needs revising its friends will 
do it.' The time is approaching when it will be revised, not by the 
friends of the tariff, but by the friends of the long-suffering American 
people." 

THE DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE STAND OF THE "STAND- 
PATTERS." 

On the 18th of April last the whole vi^orld was startled, shocked 
and horrified by the news that San Francisco, the Pearl of the 
Pacific, had been practically wiped off of the map by the combined 
forces of earthquake and fire. The dispatches confirmed the first 
hurried reports — it was only too true — the city was destroyed. 
Buildings lay in ruins, streets were effaced, thousands of homes 
in ashes, the public parks were the dwellings of the sufferers, the 
earth their bed, the heavens their roof. 

Perhaps no call of charity was ever heeded more promptly than 
this. From Maine to Florida contributions were started; relief 
trains were hurried West; benefits were given; city after city 
appropriated money and supplies; in a word, the whole country 
came to the rescue of California. The first wants of food and 
clothes relieved, the citizens of the ruined city set to work with an 
indomitable courage to rebuild on far more beautiful lines their 
wrecked metropolis. Thousands of tons of iron, steel, cement, 
lumber, glass and other building material would be necessary and 
must be purchased somewhere. Naturally these people — poorer 
by millions of dollars — would seek the cheapest market, and ex- 
perience had shown that all the needed materials could be pur- 
chased cheaper abroad than at home, PROVIDED THE DUTY ON 
IMPORTS WAS REMOVED. 

This was not a matter of charity, simple contributions of money 
and clothes could not cover this question — it was a problem of 
national legislation. Congress, and Congress alone, had the 
power to remove the prohibitive duties which the Dingley tariff 
had laid upon these commodities. But would the watch-dogs of 
"protection" be charitable enough to allow this wall to be torn 



188 PROPOSED 8inP SUBSIDY LmiSLATtON. 

down for the benefit of their suffering fellow-citizens? The 
Democrats in Congress, alive to the exigencies of the situation, 
voted money for their relief, and were the first to come to the 
rescue by introducing a bill giving drawback bounties on all 
structural material imported and "actually" used in rebuilding the 
homes of these sufferers for the space of three years. In other 
words, John Doe would buy 100,000 tons of steel in Sheffield, 
England, 30 per cent, cheaper than from Pittsburg, import and 
pay the duty on it at the port of San Francisco and, upon proof 
that he used this steel in bona-fide building, would receive back 
the amount of the duty paid. 

But what was the fate of this most estimable and democratic 
measure? It, and all others like it, shared the luck invariably 
dealt out to any legislation which in the least interferes with the 
robber practices of the steel, lumber, cement and other trusts. A 
Republican House referred it and similar bills to the Ways and 
Means Committee, where it was lulled to sleep to the tune of 
"Stand Pat, Oh, Protectionists, Stand Pat." 

But the most marvelous feature of this uncharitable proceeding 
was the fact that not a single member in the House of the Califor- 
nia delegation — a solid Republican body — spoke a word, as the 
Record shows, favorable to this or any such measure, which was 
solely for their benefit and their constituents. 

More than this, Mr. Kahn (Republican) on June 7, 1906, made 
quite an extended speech to show that such a measure would be 
"unconstitutional," closing with the following: 

"The people of San Francisco want to commence rebuilding the 
magnificent City by the Golden Gate * * * THE DELEGATION 
FROM CALIFORNIA IN THIS HOUSE, LEARNING OF THE CON- 
STITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS THAT WERE BEING RAISED 
AGAINST A DRAWBACK BILL, CONCLUDED THAT IT WERE 
BEST TO NOTIFY OUR CITIZENS THAT SUCH LEGISLATION 
IS IMPOSSIBLE, and, Mr. Chairman, the failure of the passage of 
this bill WILL NOT DELAY the rehabilitation of San Francisco." 

* * * 

"UNCONSTITUTIONAL"— if so, the Constitution has been violated 
from the "fathers" to the present day, for did not Congress enact 
almost identical legislation for the relief of Chicago fire sufferers 
and those of other cities? 

"IMPOSSIBLE" — since when has it become "impossible" for Con- 
gress to come to the rescue of suffering and needy United States citi- 
zens by untaxing imports. How can such a course be called "impossi- 
ble" with the official records for a century showing that such has been 
done before. 

"WILL NOT DELAY" — the rehabilitation of that city when letters 
have been received from reputable citizens of San Francisco stating 
"that there is now a combination being formed in the City of San 
Francisco for the purpose of putting up the prices 'to the serious detri- 
ment of property owners and home builders.' " 

Moreover, the numerous authorities which Mr. Kahn quoted to 
show that such an act would be "unconstitutional" also held that 
Congress did not have the power to appropriate money outright 
for the relief of American citizens. Turning a deaf ear to this 
ruling, Mr. Kahn voted to appropriate millions for his con- 
stituents' aid and succor. INCONSISTENT, that is for the people 
to judge. 



PROPOSED SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 139 



Such was the attitude of the House members of the California 
delegation when at Washington. Now see the change when con- 
fronted with the accusing fingers of their constituents at home. 

On September 8 the Republican State Convention met in Cali- 
fornia and adopted the following resolution as a plank of their 
state platform : 

"Resolved, That we favor the enactment by Congress of an amend- 
ment to the existing tariff law providing as a measure of relief in San 
Francisco. That for a period of three years all building material 
may be admitted into the port of San Francisco free of all duty." 

What a lightning change! "Unconstitutional" no longer; 
neither is it "impossible" to enact such legislation; the "will-not- 
delay" rebuilding plea does not hold in California as in Washing- 
ton. When driven on by the Protectionists' party whip, they 
dared not vote to thus "tinker with the tariff," but when bidding 
for votes at home and confronted with the terrible state of affairs 
caused by the trust "hold-up," they ceased to be "stand-patters" 
and fall in line with the Democrats in advocating relief from 
these outrageous "trust prices." The shoe is on another foot 
now, and the people of California do not like the footwear that 
the trust offers them. And so they declare, in no uncertain terms, 
for the very thing which the Democrats offered to give them 
months ago. Will they get it? It is extremely unlikely as long 
as trust-controlled Republican leaders stand guard over the 
Dingley tariff, which prevents them from building their homes, 
paving their streets, clothing their families, or even feeding 
themselves, except at prices laid down by the trusts. 

FREE LIZARDS UNDER DINGLEY TARIFF, BUT NO FREE 
BUILDING MATERIAL FOR THE HOMELESS. 

(T. D. 27549.) 

DRIED LIZARDS. 

Decision of the United States Circuit Court for the southern district 

of New York in Wing On Wo v. United States 

(T. D. 27496) acquiesced in. 

Treasury Department, August 7, 1906. 
Sir : The Department is in receipt of a report of the United States 
attorney for the southern district of New York in which he states 
that the case of Wing On Wo v. United States (suit 4154; T. D. 
27496) was recently decided in the United States Circuit Court for 
that district adversely to the Government, 

The merchandise in suit consisted of lizards dressed and dried 
while stretched on pieces of bamboo. Duties were assessed thereon 
at the rate of 10 per cent, ad valorem as an unenumerated unmanu- 
factured article under section 6 of the act of July 24, 1897. The 
importer protested, claiming free entry under paragraph 548 of the 
same act, under the enumeration for drugs, such as dried insects, etc., 
which claim was sustained by the United States Circuit Court in 
this case on the evidence presented. 

The Attorney-General advises the Department that no further 
proceedings will be directed in this case. You are therefore hereby 
authorized to forward the usual certified statement for a refund of 
the duties exacted in excess in settlement thereof. 
Respectfully, 

James B. Reynolds, 

Assistcmt Secretary. 
(39369.) 
CoiXECTOB OF Customs, New York, 



140 PROPOSED SHIP SUBSIDY LEGISLATION. 

The people throughout the United States demanded, and the 
civilized world expected, that Congress would untax, as stated, 
imported structural material to aid these earthquake sufferers 
whenever they should rebuild in the United States. 

The newspapers, with the fewest exceptions, appealed to Con- 
gress. A few are quoted: 

Says a contemporary: 

"To reconstruct San Francisco hundreds of thousands of tons of 
steel, millions of feet of lumber and many thousands of barrels of 
cement will be needed, to say nothing of glass and other building 
material. Steel, lumber, cement and glass are absolute necessities 
in vast quantities to rebuild shops, factories, warehouses and the 
tenements of rich and poor in San Francisco, It is a monstrous 
abuse of the taxing power to impose heavy duties on these articles, 
which can be produced as cheaply in this country as in any other at 
a profit to the producer. The whole nation groans and sweats under 
the burden. If there were no tariff the excessive cost of transporta- 
tion would in any event bear hardly upon the distressed people of 
the Pacific Coast, but in the shadow of their great catastrophe the 
added tariff exactions — $11.20 per ton on steel; $2 per thousand on 
lumber; eight cents a hundred pounds on cement; anywhere from 40 
to 60 per cent, on glass — take on a form of barbarous cruelty." 

There is a general sentiment against subjecting San Francisco to 
the burdens of the tariff in rebuilding. Even that pattest of stand- 
patters, Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, is willing to lead a movement to 
free the city of these burdens. And the burdens that it is agreed 
bear so heavily on San Francisco, bear just as heavily on every man 
in the United States who builds or rents a home or who lives under a 
roof. — Louisville Courier Journal, May 1, 1906. 

The Courier Journal was charitable to Mr. Dalzell He was, and 
is, a Stand-Patter. He and the Republican party in Congress re- 
fused to enact any law giving these sufferers any relief from the 
oppressive Dingley tariff rates, while the money he and his party 
voted out of the Treasury was used to buy food and clothes. Not 
a cent could be applied to rebuild their homes in ashes and ruins. 

Compare for a moment the Dingley tariff — a peace tariff — with 
what Mr. Blaine said about our Civil War tariff, and instantly 
reasons for tariff reform at once are apparent. Mr. Blaine said : 

"Even in the second year of the Civil War, in which we were 
struggling for life rather than glory, we had come to realize every 
exaction ascribed to the British system. ( Under the Internal Eevenue 
Act of Julyl, 1862) we were levying taxes upon every article which 
enters into the mouth, or covers the back, or is placed under the foot; 
taxes on everything which is pleasant to see, hear, feel, smell or 
taste; taxes upon warmth, light and locomotion; taxes upon every- 
thing on earth and the waters under the earth; taxes on everything 
that comes from abroad or is grown at home; on the sauce which 
pam^pers man's appetite, and on the drug that restores him to health; 
on the crime which decorates the judge and the rope which hangs 
the criminal; on the poor man's salt and the rich man's spice; on the 
brass nails of the coifin and the ribbons of the bride." 

"The system of internal revenue, of which the foregoing is no 
exaggeration, proved in all respects effective. Congress rendered 
the taxes more palatable and less oppressive to the producers 
(manufacturers) by largely increasing the duties on imports by 
the tariff act of July 14, 1862, thus shutting out still more con- 
clusively all competition from foreign fabrics. 

"THE INCREASED COST WAS CHARGED TO THE CON- 
SUMER." 



THE STEEL TRUST EXPOSED. 141 



PRICE OF STEEL RAILS "FIXED," 

NO MORE. NO LESS. 

THE POWER TO FIX AND UNFIX PRICES 

ALSO "FIXED." 

FIXED PRICE OF RAILS AT $28. 

New York, April 25. — E. H. Garry, chairman of the board of 
directors of the United States Steel Corporation, announced today 
that subsidiary companies of that corporation have fixed the price of 
steel rails for 1907 at $28 a ton. That is the price now prevailing. 

The Steel Trust has announced that, in spite of the great demand 
for rails, which would seem to justify an advance in price, the Trust 
will be moderate in its exactions and stick to the price of $28. That 
is eight or ten dollars a ton more than the Trust is glad to accept 
from foreigners; it is more than twice as much as Charles Schwab 
has said it cost to make them, and it would be impossible for the 
Trust to get that price if it were not for the tariff. In view of the 
difficulty the "stand-patters" have in keeping the tariff discussion 
down, an increase in the price of steel rails might cause an explosion 
that would throw the lid and the men who are sitting on it into 
the air.— Philadelphia Record, April 27, 1906. 

And our people pay the "fixed" price and are powerless under 
the present tariff to avoid this servitude. 



THE STEEL TRUST EXPOSED. 

EVIDENCE OF E. H. GARY SHOWN TO BE ENTIRELY 
UNRELIABLE. 

The Republican campaign book on page 126-7 endorses the evi- 
dence of E. H. Gary, chairman of the board of directors of the 
United States Steel Corporation, given before the House Com- 
mittee on the Merchant Marine. This evidence on export prices 
was evidently cooked up for partisan purposes to show that the 
Steel Trust is not protected as highly as the German Steel manu- 
facturers. 

The following communication to the "Iron Age" entirely de- 
molishes the Gary evidence with which the Republican Congres- 
sional Committee attempts to blind the eyes of Republican voters 
by putting false evidence in the hands of its speakers and news-, 
papers: 



(FROM THE "IRON AGE," SEPTEMBER 22.) 
To the Editor: As is shown in the report of "The Iron Age" of 
4pril 19, 1906, Chairman E. H. Gary of the United States Steel Cor- 
3oration has made partially erroneous .statements before the House 
Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries on April 11 bearing 
m home and export prices of the German steel industry and on the 
general industrial conditions in Germany. Mr. Gary has stated as a 
act that the home prices of the makers of other steel producing coun- 
tries are generally higher than the home prices of the manufacturers 



142 THE STEEL TRUST EXPOSED. 

in the United States. This is not correct so far as Germany is con- 
cerned; the German domestic prices are, on the contrary, considerably 
lower than the American. 

For the month of March, 1906, the American prices were per gross 
ton: 

Billets $27.00 to $33.00 

Rails 28.00 

Bars 33.60 to 41.78 

Sheets 44.80 to 58.24 

Calculated in dollars, the domestic prices in Germany for the same 
month of March, 1906, were considerably lower, as follows : 

Billets $22.98 

Rails 27.09 

Bars $28.82 to 29.50 

Sheets 30.24 to 32.76 

The statement was furthermore made with reference to Germany 
that its steel industry enjoys more extensive and better tariff protec- 
tion than that of the United States. That, too, is not correct. The 
following comparison shows, on the contrary, that the American rates 
are all higher than the German rates : 

RATES OF DUTY PER GROSS TON. 

United States. Germany. 

Steel ingots, blooms, billets and steel 

bars valued at 1 to l%c. per lb. . .$6.72 to $13.44 $3.63 

Steel rails 7.84 6.29 

Iron bars, rounds, hoops and bands. .11.20 to 17.92 6.29 

Plates and boiler plates 11.20 to 24.64 $7.26 to 10.89 

Mr. Gary's statement before the committee with reference to the 
spread in Germany between domestic and export prices for rails and 
shapes is also inaccurate. According to the chairman of the Steel Cor- 
poration, the relation between the domestic and foreign prices is $30 
to $24 for rails, and $33.60 to $28 for beams. As a matter of fact, in 
March, 1906, the German domestic price for rails was $27.09 and the 
export price $25.40 to $26.61; for shapes the German domestic price 
was $26.61 and the export price was $25.50. 

A protest must also be entered against Mr. Gary's assertion that in 
Germany they do not pay more than one-half the American wages. 
Besides their outlays for private workmen's welfare work, the German 
manufacturers must bear as an addition to the wages public and social 
charges of about 100 to 150 marks per man, so that the German work- 
man is protected against the dangers of old age, sickness, invaliding 
and accident, and thus has an important pecuniary advantage over 
the American workman. Quite irrespective of this, the German wages 
are higher than estimated by Mr. Gary. On the contrary, German 
wages in the iron and steel industry are at least two-thirds of the 
American wages. The fact must be considered, too, that the German 
manufacturers try to hold their men in bad times, while the American 
manufacturers dismiss their men when there is scarcity of work. 

All that Mr. Gary states concerning the commercial policy of the 
German Government and the alleged payment of export bounties by 
it is entirely wrong. The German Government does not pay any ex- 
port bounties to the iron industry. There can be no question what- 
ever of an "artificial stimulation" of the industry by the State in 
Germany. 

STAHLWERKS-VERBAND AKTIBNGESELLSCHAFT. 

Dusseldorf, Germany, August 22, 1906. 



THE STEEL TRUST EXPOSED. 143 

RAISE PRICE OF TOOLS. 

POWER TO FIX AND UNFIX PRICES. 

TO MAKE TOOLS 5 PER CENT. HIGHER. 

Atlantic City, N. J., May 3. — The National Machine Tool Builders* 
Association, in convention here, have decided on a 5 per cent, raise 
in the price of tools next year. — New York Times, May 4, 1906. 



EXPORT PRICES CUT. 

OBLIGED TO BUY STEEL ABROAD— OHIO ENGINEER, 

UNABLE TO SECURE MATERIAL HERE, GOES TO 

EUROPE FOR SUPPLIES— HE FINDS IT IN GERMANY 

—CHARTERS A BRITISH VESSEL AND EXPECTS 

THE TOTAL COST TO BE CHEAPER. 

( Special Cable to the Herald. ) 

The Herald's European edition publishes the following from 
its correspondent: 

LoNDOisr, Wednesday. 

THE SCARCITY OF STEEL IN THE UNITED STATES IN 
COMPARISON WITH THE DEMAND AND THE INABILITY OF 
STEEL CONCERNS TO FILL ORDERS FOR QUICK DELIVERY 
ARE DRIVING MORE STRUCTURAL STEEL BUYERS ABROAD. 

MR. WARWICK, A CONTRACTING ENGINEER IN OHIO WHO 
WAS UNABLE TO GET AN ORDER FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL 
FILLED IN THE TIME REQUIRED BY HIS CONTRACT. WENT 
ro GERMANY AND PLACED AN ORDER THERE FOR $40,000 
ro $50,000 WORTH OF MATERIAL. THEN HE CAME TO LON- 
DON AND CHARTERED A VESSEL TO TAKE IT TO AlVIERICA. 

HE EXPECTS TO HAVE HIS STEEL DELIVERED IN OHIO 
CHEAPER THAN IT WOULD HAVE COST HIM IN THE UNITED 
STATES. 

AMERICANS TO INSTALL RUSSIAN TELEPHONES. 

St. Peteesbueg, November 16, 1902. 
An American tender to install underground telephones in the city 
or 315,000 rubles has been accepted by the authorities. The tender 
was on lower terms and easier conditions of payment than the offers 
Df other bidders for the work. 

Mr. Henry W. Lamb, a prominent sheet-metal manufacturer of 
Boston, testified before the Industrial Commission as follows: 

■The tariff trusts sell all their gdods abroad cheaper than they do 
lere, and this they are enabled to do by the protective tariff. If 
oods are imported into this country a duty must be paid, which 
enhances the price; the trusts are therefore able to a certain extent 
o extort from the consumers here more than they can secure if they 
sell abroad. They do desire to sell abroad, and they therefore sell 
ibroad at a much lower price than to corresponding consumers in 
his coxmtry. 



144 WBAT SENATOR DEPEW SAYS. 



WHAT SENATOR DEPEW SAYS FIFTY MEN IN THE 
UNITED STATES CAN DO. 

"Fifty men in these United States have it in their power, by reason 
of the wealth which they control, to come together within t\venty- 
four hours and arrive at an understanding by which every wheel of 
trade and commerce may be stopped and every electric key struck 
dumb. Those fifty men can paralyze the whole country, for they 
can control the circulation of the currency and create a panic Avhen- 
ever they wiW— -Pilot, Oct., 1895. 

Mr. Depew is a leading Republican who has always stood for 
laws that make this condition" entirely possible. Does it in 1906 
Lake fifty men to "hold up" 85,000,000 of people? 

JEFFERSON ON PROPERTY. 

One hundred years ago,, when Thomas JelTerson was in Paris 
watching the progress of the French Kevolution, he came to the 
conclusion that it was a great evil to allow a few people in a 
country to hold or control the bulk of the property. 

In a letter written at that time to his friend, . the E,ev. James 
Madison, Jefferson said: __ 

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is imprac- 
ticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality produce 
great misery to the bulk of mankind. Legislators cannot invent 
too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let 
the subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the 
human mind. The descent of property of every kind, therefore, to 
all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other rela- 
tions, in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. 
Another mea,ns of silently lessening the inequality of property is to 
exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the 
higher portions or property in geom.etrical progression as they rise. 
Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unem- 
ployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far 
extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a 
common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encour- 
agenient of industry we allov/ it to be appropriated, we must take 
care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the 
appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the 
earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our countr*^ 
to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can 
find uncultivated" land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a 
moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible 
m.eans that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of 
land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a State." 

It is to be feared that we are drifting away from these ideas of 
the father of American democracy. We have killed the income tax, 
and our whole tax system bears more heavily upon the poor than it 
does upon the rich. 

We have adopted Jefferson's ideas as to the descent of property, 
but we allow great corporations and alien landlords to hold more 
than their fair share of the lands of the country. Everything pos- 
sible should be done to make it easy for a poor man to get a home 
or a farm. Home ov/ners make "good citizens and good citizens con- 
stitute a State.— Atlanta Constitution, Aug. 1, 1895. 



BBYAN ON ROOSEVELT. 145 



BRYAN ON ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION. 

St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 12, 1906. — A tremendous ovation was ten- 
dered William J. Bryan by the 12,000 people gathered in the 
Coliseum last night when he stepped upon the platform and took 
his seat. The ovation continued four minutes and was finally 
silenced by National Democratic Committeeman William A. Roth- 
well, who cut short his speech of introduction and presented Mr. 
Bryan with a wave of his hand. 

Mr. Bryan said in part: 

"You have cheered enough to cheer my heart, and I am glad to 
be here. I have been trying to find home for more than a week 
and I have found it so homelike everyv/here that I can hardly 
tell where I live. 

ROOSEVELT APPROPRIATES DEMOCRATIC POLICIES. 

"Now, I want to show you it is better to trust the Democratic 
principles to the Democratic party than to trust them to one man 
whose party denomices him for following them. I want to 
remind you that the most popular act of Mr. Roosevelt's adminis- 
tration was his bringing peace between two nations. He settled 
the coal strike after a loss of $99,000,000 to employers, employes 
and the public. It was a grand act. I applaud him for it. But 
where did he get his doctrine — in the Republican platform? No. 
He got it from the Democratic platform and I wrote the plank 
myself. If he could gain popularity by settling one strike that 
cost $99,000,000, why ought not our party have some credit for 
proposing a plan which if put into a law, would have made the 
strike unnecessary? Why hasn't the Republican party followed 
it up by making a national law that will make it unnecessary for 
a man to starve his wife and children in order to get justice? If 
the President can become the only popular man in the Republican 
party because he does something spasmodically along Democratic 
lines, what would be the popularity of the man who does some- 
thing and has always been a Democrat? 

"Where did Mr. Roosevelt' find his mandate for his action 
regarding the rate bill? He had to go to the Democratic platform. 
The most important part of the Elkins bill is the penitentiary 
sentence for its violation. 

"The railroads have been the most corrupting influence in 
politics in the past twenty years. By the use of passes they have 
packed conventions. This law was suggested by the Democratic 
party. I shall soon have occasion to talk on railroads again, but 
tonight I want to impress it upon you that the railroad question 
solution was the product of the Democratic party. 

"The President has now been in office almost five years. How 
many trust magnates are in the penitentiary ? We have a great 
many trusts in this country violating the law. My friends, I ask 
you to figure out on the basis of the number of trust magnates 
imprisoned during the past five years, how many generations will 
it take to solve the trust question?" 



146 



HISTORY COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 



HISTORY COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 

Beginning in the 44th Congress (1876) down to 1887, when the 
Commerce Act became the law, the Democrats in Congress, led 
by that great lawyer and statesman. Judge Reagan, fought for 
railroad legislation. 

Two or three Democratic Houses passed the Reagan bills, and 
sent them to a Republican Senate, which killed them. Finally, 
the encroachments by the railroads became so great that the 
people throughout the country demanded proper legislation, and 
at once. 

As shown by the printed resolution in the Congressional Record 
(Mr. Reagan's Speech), the Grangers in the State of Illinois met 
and in convention condemned Senator Cullom, Chairman of the 
Commerce Committee of the Senate, for defeating the Reagan 
Mils, with the result that the Cullom bill was reported, passed 
the Senate, came to the House, was, properly, referred to the 
House Committee, and the House substituted, for the Cullom Bill, 
the Reagan or House bill. Later conferees were appointed, but 
Congress adjourned without an agreement being reached. At the 
succeeding session an agreement was reached and the Cullom- 
Reagan or Substitute bill, composed of features of both bills, 
passed both Houses, and became the Commerce Act of 1887, which 
Mr. Cleveland approved February 4, 1887. 

When the Conference report was called up on January 14, 1887 
in the Senate, Mr. Hale moved to recommit the bill, but this was 
defeated by the following vote: nays, 36; yeas, 25. 



The vote was: 



Aldrich, 

Blair, 

Brown, 

Cameron, 

Chance, 

Cheney, 

Evarts, 

Allison, 

Beck, 

Berry, 

Blackburn, 

Bowen, 

Call, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Conger, v 



Frye, 

Gray, 

Hale, 

Hampton, 

Hawley, 

Hoar, 

Mahone, 

Cullom, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Eustis, 

Fair, 

George, 

Gibson, 

Gorman, 

Harris, 

Ingallis,, 



Ayes — 25. 

Mitchell, 

of Oregon, 
Mitchell, 
of Pennsylvania. 
Morgan, 
Morrill," 
Payne, 
Nays— 36. 
Jones, 

of Arkansas, 
Jones, 

of Missouri, 
McMillin, 
Manderson, 
Palmer, 
Plumb, 
Pugh, 
Sabin, 



Piatt, 

Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

Spooner, 

Williams. 



Sanesbuvy, 

Teller, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walthall, 

Whitthorne, 

Willson, 

of Iowa, 
Wilson, 

of Maryland. 



This Cullom-Reagan bill 
vote: yeas, 43; nays, 15. 

The nay vote was: 



passed the Senate by the following 



Aldrich, 


Chance, 


Hoar, Payne, 


Blair, 


Cheney, 


Mitchell, Piatt, 


Brown, 


Evarts, 


of Pennsylvania. Williams 


Cameron, 


Hampton, 


Morrill, 



—Congressional Record, 49th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 18, Part 1, 
P. 859. 



CONFERENCE REPORT ON COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 147 



CONFERENCE REPORT ON COMIVIERCE ACT, 1887. 

The Commerce Act of 1887 was a compound measure made up 
from the Cullom and Reagan bills. The conferees of the Senate, 
Messrs. Cullom, Isham G. Harris (Dem.), and Mr. Piatt (Rep), 
of Connecticut, dissenting, made a report to the Senate. In 
doing so, Mr. Cullom said: 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 

Mr. President, during the last days of the last session of Congress 
a conference was appointed by the two House upon the bill (S. 1532) 
to regulate commerce. The conferees on the part of the Senate have 
instructed me to make a report, which I send to the desk. 

The President pro tempore. The conference report will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

"The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill 
(S. 1532) to regulate commerce having met, after full and free con- 
ference, have agreed to recommend, and do recommend to their 
respective Houses as follows:" 

Mr. Cullom. The conferees report an amendment to the benate 
bill in the nature of a sulstitute. 

P. 171. The conference report is as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the amendment of the House of Representatives to the 
bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce, having met, after full and free 
conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their 
respective Houses as follows: 

That the house recede from its amendment and agree to the bill 
of the Senate, tvith the folloioing amendment thereto, in the nature 
of a sulstitute, and that the Senate agree to the same: 



AMENDMENT. 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 
—Congressional Record, 49th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 18, Part 1, 
P. 169. 

Then followed the bill as it passed both houses and became 
law — the Commerce Act of 1887. 

STATEMENT OF CONFEREES ON THE PART OF THE 
HOUSE. 

(Required by Rule XXIX.) 

The House conferees on the disagreeing votes between the two 
Houses on the bill of the Senate "to regulate commerce," and the 
bill of the House to "regulate commerce among the States, and 
prevent unjust discrimination by common carriers," make the follow- 
ing detail statement of the changes between the House bill and the 
substitute herewith appended. 

The action of the House being to adopt a single amendment, your 
committee, without attempting to call attention to the precise changes 
made in each section of the bill, report to the House the substance 
and effect of the changes made as follows: 

The bill of the House applied only to the transportation of freight, 
and the bill as adopted embraces the transportation of passengers as 
well as freight. 



148 CONFERENCE REPORT ON COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 

The bill of the House was limited to the regulation of such trans- 
portation on railroads. The bill as reported provides for the regula- 
tion of the transportation of property partly by railroad and partly 
by water, when both are used under common control, management, 
or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment from one State 
or Territory of the United States, or the Distict of Columbia, to any 
other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of 
Columbia. 

The bill which we report defines the term "railroad," as used in 
it, to include all bridges, ferries, used or operated with any railroad, 
which is in addition to the provisions of the House bill. 

The second section of the substitute bill adopts substantially the 
provision of the House bill against discrimination by special rates, 
rebates, drawbacks, and other devices, and declares that any one 
making such discrimination shall be guilty of unjust discrimination, 
which is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful. 

The third section of the substitute embraces substantially the 
provisions of the bill of the House, in requiring equal facilities and 
advantages for all shippers, without exception, and has a provision 
requiring equal facilities for the interchange of traffic with all other 
railroads for the carriage of property and passengers, and forbids any 
discrimination by one railroad in the facilities furnished against any 
other railroad. It contains- a clause declaring that this act shall 
not be construed as requiring such common carrier to give the use 
of its tracks or terminal facilities to any common carrier engaged in 
like business. 

The fourth section adopts substantially the provisions of the House 
bill on the long and short haul, with the following proviso: That 
upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of 
this act such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation 
by the commission, be authorized to charge less for a longer than for 
a shorter distance for the transportation of passengers and property, 
and that the commission may, from time to time, prescribe the 
extent to which such common carrier may be relieved from the 
operation of this section. 

The fifth section of the substitute bill is a copy of the clause in the 
House bill prohibiting pooling, with an amendment striking out the 
words of the House bill "by dividing," and inserting in lieu thereof 
the words "or to divide," and with the addition of the words in line 3, 
after the word "combination" "with any other common carrier or 
carriers." 

The sixth section is a substitute for the provisions of the House 
and Senate bills in relation to the publication of schedules showing 
the rates, fares, and charges for the transportation of passengers 
and property. Instead of requiring the rates to be posted up, as was 
provided in the House bill, it requires that, after ninety days from 
the passage of the act, every common carrier subject to its provisions 
shall have printed, and keep for public inspection, schedules showing 
such rates, fares, and charges, and, in addition to requiring the 
railroads to give publicity at all of the depots on their several lines 
it gives authority to the commission, where it is proper and necessary 
to require them to give publicity to their rates to other places beyond 
the lines of their several railroads. 

It also provides that the rates, fares, and charges shall not be 
raised except after ten days of public notice, but that they may be 
reduced without previous public notice; the notice, however, shall be 
simultaneous with the reduction itself, and it requires that all 
common carriers subject to the provisions of this act shall file with 
the commission provided for in the bill copies of the schedules which 
have been established, and shall promptly notify said commission 
of all changes made in the same; and that they shall file with the 
commission copies of all contracts, arrangements, or agreements with 
other common carriers in relation to traffic affected by the provisions 
of this bill; and in cases where passengers and freights pass oyer 
continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier, 
and the several common carriers operating such lines of routes 



CONFERENCE REPORT ON COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 149 

establish joint tariff of rates or fares or charges for such continuous 
lines or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also be filed with the 
commission, and made public, if so directed by the commission. 

The section also provides that where common carriers subject to 
its provisions shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its schedules 
of tariffs or rates and fares, or any part of the same, such common 
carrier shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be subject 
to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit court of the 
United States, in any judicial district wherein the principal office 
of the common carrier is situated, or wherein such offense may be 
committed, requiring a compliance with the provisions of the act. 

The seventh section of the substitute bill contains substantially 
the provisions of the first part of the second section of the House bill 
in relation to the continuous carriage of property and persons from 
the place of shipment to the place of destination. 

The eighth section of the substitute bill contains the substance of 
the seventh section of the House bill in regard to damages and 
counsel's fees, but expressed in somewhat different language. 

The ninth section of the substitute bill is a new section, which 
provides that persons claiming to have been damaged by the action 
of common carriers may proceed for recovery of their damages either 
in the courts of the United States or before the commission herein 
provided for, as they may elect, but not before both tribunals. This 
section, which gives jurisdiction to courts of the United States, does 
not give jurisdiction in civil suits to the State courts, as was pro- 
vided for in the House bill. 

This section of the substitute bill also provides that the courts 
shall have power to compel any director, officer, receiver, trustee, 
or agent of the corporation or company defendant in such suit to 
attend, appear, and testify in such case, and may compel the produc- 
tion of the books and papers of such corporation or company party 
to any such suit ; and it provides further that the claim that any such 
testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving such 
evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but that 
such evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on 
the trial of any criminal proceeding. 

The tenth section of the substitute bill makes it a penal offense to 
violate any of the provisions of this act, and is substantially the 
eighth section of the House bill, except that it puts the maximum 
of the fine which may be imposed at the sum of $5,000 instead of 
$2,000, as was provided for by the House bill. 

The eleventh and subsequent sections to the twenty-first, inclusive, 
of the substitute bill contain the substance of the Senate's bill pro- 
viding for a commission, except as modified by the provisions of 
the substitute bill herein cited. 

It provides for a commission to consist of five persons whose term 
of office shall be for six years, except for tne first appointments, 
which are to be for two, three, four, five, and six years. The members 
of this commission are to be appointed by the President by and with 
the advice of the Senate. Their principal office shall be in Washing- 
ton, but they may hold sessions at other places than Washington, 
and a single member of the commission may take testimony anywhere, 
as may be directed by the commission. 

These commissioners have salaries of $7,500 each. The commission 
has the power to appoint a secretary, with an annual salary of $3,500, 
and has authority to employ and fix the compensation of such other 
employes as it may find necessary to the proper performance of its 
duties, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. 

The nineteenth section of the Senate's bill, providing for a reference 
of the question of pooling to the commission, is not embraced in this 
substitute. 

Section 22 of the substitute bill, among other things, provides that 
nothing in this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the 
remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but that the 
provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies, with a proviso 
that no pending litigation shall in any way be affected by this act. 



150 CONFERENCE REPORT ON COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 

Section 24 of the substitute bill provides that the act shall go into 
effect sixty days after its passage, as in the opinion of your committee 
it was deemed best to give the railroads sufficient time to prepare 
their sdhedules and to modify their management in accordance with 
the provisions of this 'bill. The appointment of the commission, 
however, is to be made at once, as it has to be organized, and as said 
schedules of rates and charges have to be filed with said commission. 

J. H. EEAGAN, 
CHARLES F. CRISP, 
A. J. WEAVER, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

President Cleveland approved the bill and it became the law. 
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. 

March 30, 1896. For the first time the Supreme Court of the 
United States decided that Congress had not clothed the Inter- 
state Commission with po^er to unfix and fix rates, although 
that body had since 1887, when the law was approved by Mr. 
Cleveland, exercised the right to set aside and fix rates in proper 
proceedings. In exactly three months and eight days after this 
decision, the Democratic party (July 8, 1896) nominated Wm. J. 
Bryan for President, and on this question declared: 

DEMOCRATS FIRST AGAIN. 

"The absorption of wealth by the few, the consolidation of our rail- 
road systems, and formation of trusts and pools require stricter con- 
trol by the Federal Government of those arteries of commerce. Vve 
demand the enlargement of the powers of the Interstate Commission, 
and such restrictions and guarantees in the control of railroads as 
will protect the people from robbery and oppression." 

The Republican platform of 1896 was silent on this subject. 
Since then and previous thereto, the Democratic party has con- 
tinuously demanded railroad legislation. 

HISTORY RAILROAD LAW, 1906. 

The present Congress enacted a railroad law, amending the 
Act of 1887. It would have been law, had the Republicans been 
so disposed, years ago. 

So controlled by the railroads were many of the Republican 
Senators, that this bill could not have passed this (59th) Congress 
without the unanimous action of the Democrats, and the Presi- 
dent's "big stick," which drove and kept enough Republican 
Senators in line, to pass it. At a very acute stage of the contest 
the President found it necessary to request a conference with 
leading Democratic Senators. They gladly conferred with him 
and the press made great note of this unusual act. His position 
at that time was that which for years the Democrats had occupied, 
but he was forced by the opposition in his own party to give 
ground, and to break faith with his Democratic conferees by 
consenting to the "broad court review." 

In this way, the present law — the very best that the people 
could get from a Republican Congress — was passed. Nothing 



CONFERENCE REPORT ON COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 151 

was left undone by the Democrats in either House that could 
possibly and honorably force an unwilling Republican Senate to 
act. 

If the Republican Senate had done half its duty, there would 
have been a railroad bill passed into law long before 1887. 

The Republican party has been in complete control of the 
Government since March 4, 1897, and is specially chargeable with 
the failure to amend, broaden and strengthen the Act of 1887. 
There had been two decisions of the Supreme Court (March 30, 
1896, and March 24, 1897) holding that the Commission had 
not been given the power by Congress to fix and unfix rates. 
Other decisions during and since this time by the same court had 
nullified some of the most valuable powers theretofore exercised 
by the Commission under the Act of 1887, yet the Republican 
party during all this time have failed and refused to enact 
legislation covering the rate question, and other evils annually 
pointed out by the Commission, and by Democrats in each 
Congress. 

The Townsend-Esch bill was reported last Congress. It passed 
the House. It was a Republican measure. While notoriously 
incomplete and insufficient, it had some merit. It went to a 
Republican Senate, and as usual, died. 

The Democrats. in the House tried to amend this bill to make 
it a better law, but without avail. They then voted for it, as 
the best that could be passed in a Republican House, and insuffi- 
cient as it was, it was too much for a Republican Senate to pass. 

That Senate had killed the Littlefield anti-trust bill a few years 
before. It had killed the Townsend-Esch bill, and the Democrats 
were determined, if possible, to force the Senate to pass at least 
the Hepburn bill, or fight the question out, if it took all summer. 
The result was the old Act of 1887 was amended by the recent 
law, which is now in effect. 

Even the Hepburn bill does not afford anything like a full or 
adequate measure of relief. Practically, all amendments designed 
to perfect it were voted down in the House, and the Republicans 
in the Senate not only sought to destroy it with the so-called 
"broad court review" but defeated every effort on the part of 
the Democrats, and those few Republicans who really desired 
effective legislation, to strengthen or complete it. Urgent 
recommendations of the Commission were ignored, and from the 
subjoined statement of the vital matters excluded from the bill, 
will be seen how serious have been the omissions of the Re- 
publican Congress in the matter of rate legislation, and how 
much more effective the law could and should have been made. 
For its defects and omissions, the Republicans in the House and 
Senate are alone responsible. For its perfection the people must 
look to the Democratic party. 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION FOR LEGISLA- 
TION NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE AMENDED LAW. 

The Commission in 1903 recommended Congress to authorize 
that a valuation of railway property be made; but the new law 
makes no provision authorizing the Commission to ascertain the 



152 CONFERENCE REPORT ON COMMERCE ACT, 1887. 



value of railroad property. This is most essential and its 

h J»^ "' ^""^ °°' <=°°'^'- "»»'' the Commission the 

boad powers to revise rates upon its o^n motion in proper 

whrv:r's.o:;h°thfr''"'"*' ■"^'^ "•"^^^ ^^^ drcumsL::: 

wiiat«v«r, though the Commission informed Congress that those 

Care'thrcor'"""' """"^•- ^'^^'""^ '° the^Maximum Ka 
this power ""' '"' '"''^^ ^""'^^ - <^^^"--> --cised 

Maintaining the relation of rates to competing localities is 

^^^s'andZeT " ''' "^''"^ <" ^^^^-''"« 'ates in them 
selves, and the Commission has often requested Congress for 

^^ra^rto^LToi^r^^ 

shouTd hf. '=°'"f'««'™ "^^^ repeatedly recommended that 
he ar^ended ""^"^'r '° ^'"'^'"'''^ ^ ^^^^'"'^We classification, 

up^r commiror "" "'"'^ ^°"'^"'- --^ -'« 

The long and short haul section of the old law was made 
prac ically inoperative by court interpretation, owing to th 
broad construction given the phrase "under similar circumstances 
and conditions .' The Commission has called attention oth 
defect in the law and has recommended that it be given the 
power to determine what conditions are dissimilar; but the 
amended law ignored those recommendations and the necess ty 
of their enactment into law. ^•'"^'-s 

Under the old law the railway companies wUMielA Important 
testimony upon the hearings before the Commission which they 
s^^eauently offered on the trial before the conrt. m tUis lanZ 
tneysucoeeaea in reversing the Commission and in delaying the 
administration of justice, although the Supreme Cour^ vigor 

ih" trrsr "^ "^"'^^- -^"^ -- -'»- -- -"- 

The Commission has for many years urged legislation to reduce 
the long and increasing roll of slaughter of employees and 
passengers by the enactment of a law compelling carriers to 
adopt the block system, but the amended law has failed to include 
such a provision. 



EXTRAVAGANT APPROPRIATIONS^. 153 



EXTRAVAGANT APPROPRIATIONS. 

FIFTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 

The official statement of the volume of appropriations made by 
the first session of the Fifty-ninth Congress, prepared by Thomas 
P. Cleaver and James C. Courts, chief clerks of the Senate and 
House appropriation committees, shows that the grand total is 
$879,589,186.16. 

The details by bills are as follows: 

Agriculture $9,930,440.00 

Array 71,817,165.08 

Diplomatic and consular 3,091,094. 17 

District of Columbia 10,138,672. 16 

Fortification 5,053,993.00 

Indian 9,260,599.98 

Legislative, executive and judicial 29,681,919.30 

Military Academy 1,664,707 .67 

Naval 102,091,670.27 

Pension 140,245,500.00 

Post-office • 191,695,998.75 

Sundry civil 98,538,770.32 

Deficiency appropriations 39,129,035 .45 

Miscellaneous appropriations 27,173,299 .01 

Permanent appropriations 140,076,320.00 

Grand total $879,589,185.16 

There was no river and harbor appropriation at this session. 

If the same amount for rivers and harbors which was appropriated 

in 1898 had been appropriated the total would have reached 

$900,421,598.07. 
And though there were no appropriations for rivers and harbors 

this year, yet the total appropriations exceed those of 1898 by 

$350,854,105.86. 
The total of appropriations for 1898 was $528,735,105.86. The 

details by bills for that year were as follows: 

Agricultural $3,182,902.00 

Army 23,129,344.30 

Diplomatic and consular 1,695,308 . 76 

District of Columbia 6,186,991.06 

Fortifications 9,517,141.00 

Indian 7,674,120.89 

Legislative, etc 21,690,766.90 

Military Academy 479,572.83 

Navy . 33,003,234. 19 

Pensions (including deficiencies therefor) 141,263,880.00 

Post-office 95,665,338.75 

River and harbor (including amounts in sundry 

civil, deficiency, and special acts) 20,832,412.91 

Sundry civil (exclusive of amoimts for rivers and 

harbors) 34,490,370.47 

Deficiencies (exclusive of amounts for pensions and 

rivers and harbors) 9,096,417 .34 

Total $407,907,801.40 

Miscellaneous 749,057 .90 

Total regular annual appropriations $408,656,859 . 30 

Permanent annual appropriations (estimates) 120,078,220.00 

Grand total $528,735,079.30 

-rCong. Record, p. 10,124. 



154 EXTRAVAGANT APPROPRIATION SK 

The most striking increases are those providing for the army, 
navy, sundry civil, and deficiencies. 

1898. 1907. 

Army $23,129,344.30 $71,817,165.08 

Navy 33,003,234.19 102,091,670.27 

Deficiencies 9,096,417 . 34 39,129,035 . 45 

Sundry civil 34,490,370 . 47 98,538,770 . 32 



The combined appropriations for the army and navy for 1898 
were $56,132,578.49. The combined appropriations for the army 
and navy for 1907 are $173,908,835.85. This shows an increase of 
$117,776,257.86 in these two items alone. The expense of the army 
and navy is therefore more than three times as great now as it 
was in 1898. 

In discussing these extravagant appropriations, Mr. Livingston, 
the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, 
said in a statement published in the Congressional Record of 
Julys, 1906: 

"This growth in appropriations sustains the contention that the 
Republican party stands for extravagance in public expenditures, in 
order to use that extravagance as a cloak for their more objectionable 
purpose of maintaining a high protective tariff to favor the trust 
combinations of manufacturers of the country. 

"A reduction of expenditures, they well know, would compel a 
commensurate reduction in taxation, and to that extent a lowering of 
the Chinese wall of protection that now surrounds the great body of 
consumers, who constitute the larger portion of our population, and 
compel tribute from them to the favored classes. 

"Much of this extravagance grows out of the practice prevailing 
with the present Administration of appointing commissions to do what 
Congress ought to do, and what Congressmen are elected for and paid 
for; thus delegating the powers constitutionally belonging to Con- 
gress to others who have no particular relations with, or responsibili- 
ties to, the public, and do not render an accounting to the taxpayers 
of this country." 



DEFICIENCIES—HOW MADE. 155 



DEFICIENCIES— HOW MADE. 

HOW THEY HAVE GROWN IN VIOLATION OF LAW LONG 
SINCE ENACTED. 

Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes of the ITnited States 
provides: 

"That no Department of the Government shall expend, in any one 
year, any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for 
that fiscal year, or involve the Government in any contract for the 
future payment of money in excess of such appropriations." 

And the Constitution provides that "no money shall be drawn 
from the Treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations made by 
law;" that is, by act of Congress, since Congress alone has power 
to lay taxes or appropriate the proceeds thereof. 

If these laws were obeyed by the Executive Departments there 
would never be a deficiency at the close of any fiscal year. But 
for many years they have been systematically violated, and Con- 
gress has winked at the violation by ratifying the payments made 
in excess of appropriations, and making new appropriations to 
cover the excess of expenditures over appropriations. 

Starting with the year 1898, these deficiency appropriations 
have been made by Congress as follows: 

1898 $8,594,447 

1899 347,165,001 

1900 46,882,724 

1901 13,167,008 

1902 13,289,314 

1903 24.944,124 

1904 19^651,968 

1905 25,083,375 

1906 38,095,378 

Total $537,873,357 

These vast sums aggregating more than half a billion dollars 
were not drawn from the Treasury "in pursuance of appropria- 
tions made by law," as the Constitution requires, but were spent 
under the Executive Department before appropriations to meet 
the expenditures had been made. The effect is that the purse 
strings are practically taken from Congress and seized by the 
Executive in violation of the fundamental principle of our Gov- 
ernment that the people's representatives in the Lower House of 
Congress, and no other functionary whatever, shall control the 
purse of the nation. The officers who are responsible for these 
expenditures in excess of appropriations already have disobeyed 
the law and should have been, but were not punished. 



156 PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR. 



PRODUCTIVITY OF AlViERICAN AND FOREIGN LABOR. 

The Review of ttie World's Commerce during the year 1901 
submitted to Congress by President McKinley and Secretary Hay, 
January, 1901, states that "the London Spectator of December 29, 
1900, quotes 'a competent writer' in a British trade paper as 
saying: 

" 'From a careful calculation, made after comparing notes with other 
observers, and taking the figure 1 to li/4 as representing the producing 
capacity of the ordinary British workman, I consider the Swiss- 
German as finely represented by 1% and the Yankee by 2^/ " 

William M. Evarts, Secretary of State, in his report on the 
"State of Labor in Europe," 1879, said: 

"The average American workman performs from one to one and 
one-half to twice as much work in a given, time as the average 
European worker. This is, so important a point in connection with 
our ability to compete with the cheap labor manufacturer of Europe, 
that it seems at first thought so strange, that I will trouble you with 
somewhat lengthy quotation from the reports in support thereof : 

"France — The hours of labor are from eleven to twelve, but an 
average American workman will accomplish as much in nine hours. 
(Report, Consul Bordeaux.) 

"Germany — I am satisfied that an ordinary workman in the United 
States will do as much again as will one in this district in the same 
time. (Report, Chemnitz, Saxony.) 

"An active American workman will do as much work in a given 
time, at any employment, as two or three German workman. ( Report, 
Consul Leipsic.) 

"There can be no question that, speaking in general terms, the 
quality as well as the quantity, of the work of the German artisan 
is inferior to that produced by the American. The workman here is 
inclined to be sluggish, and what he accomplishes is relatively small. 
(Report, Consul Sonneberg.) 

CONCLUSION. 

"One workman in the United States, as will be seen from the fore- 
going extracts, does as much work as two workmen in most of the 
countries of Europe. 

"Within the last fifteen years, we have demonstrated our ability, 
by the brilliant development of our resources, to exclude, by honest 
competition, foreign manufactures to a large extent from our shores." 

Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, June 25, 1881, reported on our 
cotton goods trade of the world, said: 

"Undoubtedly the inequalities in the wages of English and American 
operatives are more than equalized by the greater efiiciency of the 
latter and their longer hours of labor." 

He gave several examples as follows: 

"The wages of spinners and weavers in Lancashire and in Massa- 
chusetts, according to the foregoing statements, were as follows per 
week: Spinners, English, $7.20 to $8.40 (master spinners running as 
high as $12.00) ; American, $7.07 to $10.30. 



PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR. 15T 



Weavers, English, $3.84 to $8.64, subject, at the date on which these 
rates were given, to a reduction of 10 per cent.; American, $4.82 
to $8.73. 

The average wages of employees in the Massachusetts mills are as 
follows, according to the official returns: Men, $8.30; women, $5.62; 
male children, $3.11; female children, $3.08. According to Consul 
Shaw's report, the average wages of the men employed in the Lan- 
cashire mills on the 1st of January, 1880, was about $8.00 per week, 
subject to a reduction of 10 per cent.; women from $3.40 to $4.30, 
subject to a reduction of 10 per cent." . 

The statistician, State Department, Mr. C. S. Hill, to the Tariff 
Commission stated that our manufacturing in 1882 was $8,000,- 
000,000 made by 5,250,000 hands, and that for the same time the 
product of England was $4,000,000,000 made by 5,140,200 hands, 
and then said: 

"Here is the positive proof that American mechanics in the aggre- 
gate accomplish exactly double the result of the same number of 
British mechanics. They are, therefore, very justly paid double in 

wages." 

On April 24, 1894, Senator Mills, of Texas, delivered a speech in 
the Senate, in part, as follows: 

Mr. President, we have the cheapest labor on the globe. We have 
the poorest paid labor in proportion to the work our laborers do that is 
to be found on earth. Why so ? Because we work by machinery, and 
one laborer in this country produces in some cases five, ten, and even 
over ten times more than is performed by the man who is doing the 
same work in other countries. Great Britain approaches more closely 
to us than any other country, but she is behind us. We can produce 
the things we are producing cheaper than anybody else on earth. 

I have a statement here to which I want to call the attention of 
the Senate, the country and especially of the wageworkers. Mulhall's 
Dictionary of Statistics gives the number of persons employed in 
manufactures in all the different countries in the world that are 
manufacturing to any considerable extent, the total value of the 
product made in each country and the number of persons employed. 

By dividing the number of hands by the value of the product we 
get precisely the amount of value turned out by each hand. 

This statement shows that for 1888 the United Kingdom had 
5,189,000 persons employed in manufacture; that they turned out a 
product worth $4,100,000,000 and the product per hand was $790. 
France had 4,443,000 persons employed. They turned out a product 
valued at $2,425,000,000, or $545 per hand. Germany had 5,350,000 
persons employed. They turned out a product valued at $2,915,- 
000,000 or $545 per head. Eussia had 4,700,000 employed. She 
turned out a product valued at $1,815,000,000, or $381 per head. 
I will print this table and will not go over it all. The United States 
had 3,837,000 persons employed, who turned out a product valued at 
$7,215,000,000, or $1880 per head. 

Depaetivient of Labor, 
Washington, February Q, 1894. 

My Deae Sir — In response to yours of January 18th and January 
26th; I have the honor to state that from the various sources which I 
have been able to consult I estimate the average annual earnings in all 
manufacturing industries in the countries named by you to be as, 
follows : 

1, United States, $347; 2, Great Britain, $204; 3, France, $175; 
4, Belgium, $165; 5, Germany, $155; 6, Austria, $150; 7, Switzerland, 
$150; 8, Italy, $130; 9, Spain, $120; 10, Russia, $120. 



158 PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR. 

The above estimates have been made, so far as the United States is 
concerned, from the actual number of persons employed and the total 
wages paid to them as shov/n by the census of 1880; for Great Britain 
they have been made largely from British figures, and for the other 
countries the estimates have been made from statements originating 
with foreign authorities and verified by facts collected by agents of 
this department. While the actual figures given in the above esti- 
mates may not be more than approximately correct, the proportions, 
I feel sure, are fair. 

I am, very respectfully, 

CARROLL D. WRIGHT, 

Commissioner. 
Hon. Roger Q. Mills, 

United States Senate. 
The average annual rate of wages is for 1880. The number of hands 
and value of product is for 1888. The relative comparison is the 
same. The wages in all countries would be higher in 1888 than in 

1880. But the relativ^e differences would be substantially the same. 
****** * 

I am not talking about 1890. I am taking the annual average 
wages paid in 1880 and comparing it with the product of 1888. It 
makes no difference, as I said before, that the wages are of 1880 and 
the product of 1888, for relatively they are the same thing. The 
v/ages for 1888 would have been a little larger in all the countries, 
but it is amply sufficient for the purposes which I have in view. 
Now, let us apply this. Seven hundred and ninety dollars' worth of 
product per hand in Great Britain cost in wages $204. In France 
$545 worth of product cost $175 for wages. In Germany $545 cost 
$155 for wages. 

In the United States $1,880 worth of product cost $347 for wages. 
Now, our friends point to the fact that the workman in the United 
States gets $347 for his annual work; in Great Britain he gets $204; 
in France he gets $175; in Germany $155. Ours is the high-priced 
workman, and these are paupers, but when we come to look at the 
fact, that our people are paid less than the foreigner for the amount 
of work they turn out, the boot is found on the other foot. 

Now, let us carry this thing out. Let us take the labor cost in other 
countries of $1,880 worth of product and compare it with ours. The 
$1,880 worth of goods imported into the United States is the thing that 
is to test the condition of our workmen. When the goods come here 
then the labor cost of a given amount of goods is compared with the 
labor cost of the same amount of goods in a foreign country. One 
thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars' worth of goods cost in tins 
country $347 for labor. 

Table Showing Number of Employees, Total Value of Product, 
Value of Product Per Employee, Annual Average Wages 
Paid Per Employee in Manufacturing Industries in the 
Countries Named Below in 1880. 

Total value of 

Countries. product. 

United Kingdom $4,100,000,000 

France 2,425,000,000 

Germany 2,915,000,000 

Russia 1,815,000,000 

Austria 1,265,000,000 

Italy 605,000,000 

Spain 425,000,000 

Belgium 510,000,000 

Switzerland 160,000,000 

United States 7,215,000,000 





Product Annual 


Number of 


per 


wages 


employees. 


hand. 


paid. 


5,189,000 


$790 


$204 


4,443,000 


545 


175 


5,350,000 


545 


155 


4,760,000 


381 


120 


3,090,000 


409 


150 


2,281,000 


265 


130 


1,167,000 


364 


120 


953,000 


545 


, 165 


370,000 


4,33 


150 


3,837,000 


1,880 


347 



WHO PAYS THE TARIFF TAXf 159 

WHO PAYS THE TARIFF TAX? 

THE ''FATHERS." 

The Republicans speak of the "fathers," who framed the first 
tariff so as to "encourage and protect" our "manufacturers." We 
have seen that this tariff was practically no tariff compared with 
the Dingley rates, or any other Republican tariff ever framed. 
But in the House even Mr. Madison, one of the "fathers," warned 
Congress not to be "oppressive" in framing this (insignificant) 
tax rate and the Senate reduced some of the rates in the House 
bill. What did the "fathers" then say about "who pays the tariff 
tax?" 

Alexander Hamilton said: 

"Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on 
the domestic fabrics." 

John Quincy Adams said: 

"The duty constitutes a part of the price of the whole mass of the 
article in the market. It is substantially paid upon the article of 
domestic manufacture as well as upon that of foreign production. 
Upon one it is a bounty, upon the other a burden, and the repeal of the 
tax must operate as an equivalent reduction of the price of the article, 
whether foreign or domestic." 

Mr. Clay: 

"If there is any truth in political economy, it cannot be that result 
will agree with the prediction^ for we are instructed by our experience 
that the consumption of any article is in proportion to the reduction of 
its price, and that, in general, it may be taken as a rule that the duty 
upon an article forms a part of its price." 

Andrew Jackson: 

"There is, perhaps, no one of the powers conferred on the Federal 
Government so liable to abuse as the taxing power. 

"The taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the 
real payer in the price of the article, they do not so readily attract the 
attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly 
by the tax gatherer, and as many of these duties are imposed upon arti- 
cles of necessity which are daily used by the great body of the people, 
the money raised by these imposts is drawn from their pockets." 

Senator Sherman said : 

"I say it, and I stand by it, that as a general rule the duties paid 
on imports operate as a tax upon the consumer." 

Senator Edmunds: 

"In the main, all these taxes come out of the consumer, particularly 
internal revenue tax, and perhaps b\\ of these substantially." 



160 WHO PAYS THE TARIFF TAX? 



Mr. Payne, the Republican leader of the House, March 27, 1897, 
said: 

"I want to state the proposition again. I do not want any Democrat 
to have any dispute or trouble about it. ( 1 ) Where we do not pro- 
duce an article in the United States, or ( 2 ) produce a very small pro- 
portion, like 10 or 12 per cent., when we put a duty on that article it 
becomes a revenue duty purely. Such a duty raises the price almost to 
the full extent of the duty, and the consumer has to pay it; but when 
you put a duty on an article that we cam, produce in the United States 
and put on duty enough to allow our people to go into the business, 
immediately competition takes place and the universal Yankee mind 
is out for an invention to try to find some way to make it more 
cheaply, and the price of the article is cheapened in the American 
market until it gets away down below the former price, and very often 
away down below the duty." (Applause on the Republican side.) 

Mr. Payne's argument is that the consumer pays the tax in three 
instances: 

First, when we levy a tax on the article we do not produce. 

Second, when we produce 10 or 12 per cent, of such article. 

Third, when we can produce the article and there is no com- 
petition. 

Mr. Payne, in effect, admits the Republican way is very narrow 
for the consumer to escape paying the tax at least on the article 
we can produce. Man's experience is that when foreign com- 
petition is excluded combinations form and control or entirely 
destroy competition. The consumer objects to paying a price 
unreasonable under the circumstances, whether the article is or is 
not taxed. And the circumstances should not be caused by unfair 
or unlawful methods. Many public utterances of leading Repub- 
licans mightily support the contention of the Democrats, that the 
tariff is a tax and that the "monopolized article" should be 
untaxed, as suggested by Mr. Sherman, Mr. Hale and other Repub- 
licans, to free it and liberate and give the people a fair chance to 
buy in the open market and live like free men. 

In speaking of a monopoly in steel rails. Representative John 
H. Gear, of Iowa, January 16, 1880, said: 

"To a State whose products are in the main agricultural, as are 
those of Iowa, anything which enhances the cost of railways, thereby 
even incidentally in the least degree increasing the expense of the 
transportation of her products to the seaboard, which is her great 
market, is a question of great interest to all. In view of their greater 
strength and durability, which lessened the cost of replacement, all 
the great trunk railway lines of the country are adopting Bessemer 
steel rails. The manufacturers of this class of rails in the United 
States are controlled by a combination of not exceeding, I think, ten 
firms in number. 

"This combination is protected by a high and specific tariff, which 
prevents the importation of foreign rails to any extent, thereby in- 
creasing the cost of the railways of the country. Without discussing 
the tariff question in all its bearings, it may well be considered 
whether it is wise legislation, by a tariff exceptional in its character, 
to put immense profits into the pockets of a monopoly composed of 
but few persons at the expense, in directly, not only of Iowa farmers, 
but of the whole West. It would, therefore, be well to instruct our 
Senators and Representatives in Congress to examine into this sub- 
ject with a view to removing by Congressional legislation any dis- 
criminations which may be found to exist in the tariff on steel rails 
against the interests of Iowa producers," 



'FREE LI8Ty 161 



"FREE LIST," THE MONOPOLIZED ARTICLE TO KILL 
THE MONOPOLY OR TRUST. 

HIGH REPUBLICAN AUTHORITY FOR THIS REMEDY. 

Mr. Hale, now Senator, in the House, 1871, said: 

"The best Turks Island salt can be purchased at the place produced 
at 9 and 10 cents per bushel. I believe there is no one question about 
which the reflection of millions of people day by day is so decided as 
it is in declaring that there should be no tax upon this article of salt. 
I have been asked to amend the bill introduced by me, so as to cut 
down the duty 50 per cent. I do not consent to that. I believe this 
article should be put upon the free list; that the monopoly which has 
obtained heretofore for the Onondaga Salt Works — as great and com- 
plete as any monopoly ever planted by the Tudors in England's most 
despotic times — ought to cease." 

May 18, 1872, Mr. Garfield said: 

"American salt for two years past has been sold in Toronto, Canada, 
at a dollar less per barrel than on the New York side of the lake. 
That is, we produced it, shipped it across, paying whatever portage, 
freights and transportation were required, and then sold to our Ca- 
nadian neighbors at a dollar per barrel less than it was sold to people 
on our shores. Certainly gentlemen will not want a duty continued 
that enables that thing to be done." 

On June 6, 1870, by vote — ayes 112, noes 78, not voting 40 (Globe, 
vol. 43, p. 4101) — the House passed the following resolution: 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Ways and Means is hereby in- 
structed, at the earliest moment practicable, to report a bill to this 
House to abolish the tariff on coal, so as to secure that important 
article of fuel to the people free from all taxes." 

Among those voting "aye" were Messrs. Allison and Cullom, 
now Senators; the late Senator Hawley; John A. Logan and B. F. 
Butler. 

March 21, 1890, Mr. Sherman said: 

"If the combination is aided by our tariff laws they should be 
promptly changed, and, if necessary, equal competition with all the 
world should be invited in the monopolized article." 

The late Governor Mount (Republican), said in 1899: 

"I am against trusts. Remove the protection from the article con- 
trolled by trusts, thereby permitting open competition, and see how 
quickly these trusts will come to their senses." 

October 15, 1899, Mr. Sherman said: 

"The primary object of a protective tariff is to invite the fullest 
competition of individuals and corporations in domestic production. 
If the individuals or corporations combine to advance the price of a 
domestic product to prevent free result of open and fair competition, 



162 ''FREE LIST. 



I would without a moment's hesitation reduce the duties on foreign 
goods competing with them in order to break down t^ie combination. 
Whenever this competition is evaded or avoided by combination of 
individuals or manufacturers, the duty should be reduced and foreign 
competition promptly invited." 

Senator Washburn (Republican), in 1899, said: 

"The Republican party has got to disconnect itself from trusts, and 
-wherever they find the trust is depending for its exorbitant profits 
largely on protective duties it will be the duty of Republican Con- 
gressmen and Senators to remove the duties at once. This should 
be done with the duty on steel rails and tin plate." 



SENATOR SHERMAN. 

REDUCE DUTY. INVITE FOREIGN COMPETITION TO CURB 

TRUSTS. 

The primary object of a protective tariff is to invite the fullest 
competition by individuals and corporations in domestic production. 
If such individuals or corporations combine to advance the price of 
the domestic product, and to prevent the free result of open and fair 
competition, I would, without a moment's hesitation, reduce the duties 
on foreign goods competing with them in order to break down the 
combination. * * * 

Whenever this free competition is evaded or avoided hy comhination 
of individuals or corporations, the duty should he reduced and foreign 
competition promptly invited. — October 15, 1889. 



BLAINE FOR FREE HIDES. 

BLAINE TO McKINLEY IN 1890, 

Washington, April 10, 1890. 
Dear Mr. McKinley : 

It is a great mistake to take hides from the free list, where they 
have been for so many years. It is a slap in the face to the South 
Americans with whom we are trying to enlarge our trade. It will 
benefit the farmer by adding five to eight per cent, to the price of his 
children's shoes. It will yield a profit to the butcher only — the last 
man that needs it. The movement is injudicious from beginning to 
end — in every form and phase. Pray stop it before it sees light. 
Such movements as this for protection will protect the Republican 
party into a speedy retirement. 

Yours hastily, 

James G. Blaine. 
Hon. William McKinley, 

Chairman Ways and Means Committee. 



A TAX ON HIDES 18 A TAX ON 8H0ES. 163 



A TAX ON HIDES IS A TAX ON THE SHOES WE WEAR. 

The shoe manufacturers of the United States demand the repeal 
of the 15 per cent. Dingley tariff tax on hides. They say that 
tax has only benefited the Cattle^ Trust and the Beef Trust, they 
being one and the same thing in effect, if not in fact. The Beef 
I'rust is giant enough to escape punishment — having received a 
recent "immunity bath" under the Roosevelt administration, and 
confessedly disobeyed the injunction previously issued against it, 
and yet the Republicans "stand pat" — say this giant is an "infant" 
and needs 15 per cent, protection — and refuse to reduce or repeal 
this tax, and that too in face of the fact, that the shoe manufac- 
turers say, with this tax repealed, they can make and sell our own 
people cheaper shoes and increase their export sales. 

They also say, that imported hides are sold by our Hide Trust 
cheaper to foreigners, who come to the United States and buy 
them, than to our oion people. 

The recent Republican Campaign Book (1906) states that the 
tariff on hides was 5 per cent, under the tariff of 1842 — 'a protective 
tariff, and 4 per cent, under the tariff of 1857 — the lowest tariff 
since 1812 — which the Republicans framed and helped to pass 
through a Republican House, presided over by a Republican 
Speaker, General Banks, This book further states, that the tariff 
was raised to 5 per cent. March, 1861, and increased December, 
1861, to 10 per cent., of course to get revenue to carry on the Civil 
War; that rate remained until 1873, and from that date hides 
were "free" until the Dingley tariff of 1897 placed a tariff tax of 
15 per cent, on hides. Although in the recent Republican Cam- 
paign Book (1906)* it is stated the price of shoes have not been 
increased under the Dingley tariff, they produce no official table 
showing this. In the Republican Campaign Book of 1904, page 
66, the exact opposite is shown by a table there printed here 
reproduced: 



164 



A TAX ON HIDES 18 A TAX ON SHOES. 



m 
O 

w 

< 

m 
H 
O 
O 
W 



^ 


CO 


o 


'fl 




;3 


m 


P 


W 


a 


r:) 


« 


e 



o - 



00 (D 

d o 

i S 



"^ bo 



5 -Q 



ft 

03 o 

g5 



03 O 



to O 

® 



ft 
3 w 






^ QQ 

bD © 

d CO 



:^ :>?!:>^ 



:^ :55: :5?j^^::?i^:^^ 



(to I© CO w 



> IN N (M (M t- 1- 1- 



g 



is?; 



^ 



) (M «a t- 1— t- »o < 

) 00 CO 00 OS o» Oi c 



^:^^^ ^::^ ::r:^ ^ 



^ 



•::^i)^ ii^:^^ ^::i^ 



(M(M(M(MIM«©J(M(M<M(M(>^e^ClC^<M(N(N(MIM(NW©J(MN(M(MKl(M(M 



M 

'3 

i 

oi 
O 

d 

3 
o 

a; 



ifl(Mt-CJCClOiMNOO»OiON 

coco(Meccococoeoeocococo-'i< 



lOOt-^iNeit-t-t-t-SCKMfMNfM 



::^i)?j :;5;if' ^^^^i^ 



ifi! :)^ 



lOOOOOOeCKMIM 



iR ^ 



^ ^:^ 



00»OOOt-OOt-t-(M<Mt-OiC(Mi«>it'<MiMkO»0(M(MeQt-t-t-t-t- 
r-liHOr-l.-IOT-lTHOOTHr-li-|iNi-li-(r-li-<,-(rHr-lTH.-(rHrHi-lrHrHT-li-l 



t-(MOiOlM<MmeC!(M(M»nt-(?3(Mt-iOt-»CinU5t-00(Mi?CKM(Meci(M(M 

rooi05050505oso5050505050oa5050i05050i050oooooooo 



1— IrHr-lr-lT— It- li— iTHi—lr-liMi— lO-'lir^rHT-li— It— li-Hr-lr-lr-IOrHr-i<— (I— I,— Ir-il— I 



OOOiOOOSOOOSOSOOi— li-HOOiSiOOOOOOi— IrHi-lr- li— It— li— I 



• nit>s+i -nrif^s+j .:;^>>>+j •:;:^k^+3 •:;:j>5+i -^ >>+j .:;5 >54J -^ 
OS ft^O ^ ft^O =3 '^RO 03 ft^O «« ft£o «s (5<20 * ^B.O <^ <^ 



THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF. 165 

The people of the United States have paid $20,894,094.65 tariff 
tax on hides and skins imposed by the Dingley tariff, as shown 
by the following: 

Hon. John W. Gaines, M. C, 

1325 G Street, Washington, D. C. 
Sib — In response to your request of today you are respectfully 
informed that from July 1, 1897, to June 30, 1906, the duty collected 
on hides and skins was $20,894,094.65. 

The Dingley Act went into effect on July 24, 1897, so you can see 
that these figures practically cover the entire period that this Act has 
been effective. 

Very truly yours, 

(Signed) J. N. Whitney, 

Acting Chief of Bureau. 

Mr. A. W. Rice (National Association of Boot and Shoe Manu- 
facturers) at a meeting of the National Reciprocity convention, 
November 19 and 20, 1901, said: 

"The fact is the English or other foreign manufacturers come into 
this market (United States) and buy leather made from South 
American or other hides from 10 to 15 per cent, cheaper than the 
American manufacturer can buy it. 

They take the leather home, make it into shoes and in competition 
with American manufacturers send it to Cuba or other foreign coun- 
tries and that is one of the reasons Cuba imports a large percentage 
of its shoes from Europe." (Page 68, Printed Proceedings.) 



THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF. 

The able speech of Mr. Rucker, of Missouri, during the last 
session of Congress shows in another light the benefits of a 
revenue as against a protective tariff in the increase of farming 
property as set forth in the following table: 

Comparison of the Estimated Valuation of the National Wealth of 
THE United States and the Valuation of Farming Property. 

Year. Estimated national wealt h. Value of all farm property. 

rp^ , .Percent rr^, Percent.of 

-^"^^^ Increase. ^^^ Increase. 

1850 $7,135,780,288 $3,967,343,580 

1860 16,159,616,068 126.46 7,980,493,063 101.15 

1870 30,068,518,507 86.07 8,899,966,578 11.52 

1880 43,642.000,000 45.14 12,180,501,538 36.84 

1890 65.037,091,197 49.02 16,082.267,689 82.03 

1900 95,000,000,000 45.90 20,439,901,164 27.09 

Again he shows the value to the farmer of a revenue tariff: 

Statement Showing Increase in Acreage of Improved Farm Lands 
AND Value of Live Stock, 1850-1900. 

Acreage of 

Years. improved Increase. Value of live Increase. 

farm lands. stock. 

Per cent. Per cent. 

1850 113,032,614 .... $544,180,516 

I860 163,110,720 44.30 1,089,329,915 100.17 

1870 188,921,099 15.82 1,220,221,166 12.01 

1880 284,771,042 50.73 1,576,884,707 29.22 

1890 357,616,755 25.57 2,308,767,573 46.41 

1900 , 414,498,487 15.90 3,075,477,703 33.20 



166 



THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF. 



He further shows that the business of the country increased 
more under the protective tariff of 1880 than under the present 
Dingley tariff. Worthy of note here is a comparison of the in- 
crease in manufacturing in 1850-60 under the very low tariff of 
that period as against that of the table below. In 1860 the in- 
crease was 87 per cent., while in 1900 it was only 44.1. 

Mr. Rucker — I desire to read a table compiled from the Abstract 
of the Twelfth Census, under the title of ^'Manufactures." 



Date of census. 




Per cent, of 
increase. 


1900. 


1890. 


1880. 


1890 1880 

to to 
1900. 1890. 


Number of estab- 
lishments . 512,276 

Capital $9,831,496,500 

Wage-earners (av- 
erage number) . . 5,314,539 

Total wages. $2,327,295,545 

Men at least 16 

year old... 4,114,348 

Wages $2,019,954,204 

Women at least 16 

year old .. 1,031,608 

Wages $281,679,649 

Children under 16 

years old 168,583 

Wages $25,661,692 

Value of 

products .$13,010,036,514 


355,405 

$6,525,050,759 

4,251,535 
$1,891,209,696 

3,326,964 

$1,659,215,858 

803,688 
$215,367,976 

120,885 
$16,625,862 

$9,372,378,843 


253,852 

$2,790,272,606 

■ $947,953,795 


44.1 40.0 
50.7 133.8 

25.0 55.6 

23.1 99.5 

23.7 


$5,369,597,191 


21.7 .... 

28.4 .... 

30.8 .... 

39.5 .... 
54.3 .... 

38.8 74.5 



Halt here and consider the startling figures that the table given 
below discloses on the subject of life — food whereby the wage- 
earner may support his family, the farmer may renew his strength 
for the plow-share, and the honest citizen of all trades may live 
and seek the Constitutional-given rights of "life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness." 

COST OF LIVING COMPARED UNDER WILSON AND 
DINGLEY TARIFFS. 

In Bulletin No. 59, issued by the Bureau of Labor in July, 1905, I 
find this statement 

"The price of all the more important articles was higher in 1904 
than the average for the ten-year period, 1890 to 1899. Bacon was 
37.9 per cent, higher, eggs 30.9 per cent, higher, dry or pickled pork 
25.8 per cent, higher, fresh pork 24 per cent, higher, corn meal 21.5 
per cent, higher, potatoes 21.3 per cent, higher, chickens 20.7 per cent, 
higher, flour, 19.9 per cent, higher, salt ham, 18.4 per cent, higher. 

These "conclusions," reached after a most careful and thorough 
investigation, are fully justified by this table contained in Dun's 
Review of recent date. 



Wholesale cost — 

Classes of commodities. July 1, 1897. July 1, 1905. Increase. 

Wilson Act. Dingley Act. Per cent. 

Breadstuffs $10.59 $18.83 77.87 

Meats 7.53 8.61 14.41 

Dairy and garden products 8.71 9.98 14.55 

Other food articles 7.89 9.92 25.80 

Clothing 13.81 17.99 30.26 

Metals 11.64 15.92 36.71 

Miscellaneous 12.29 17.06 38.84 

Total $72.46 $98.31 35.69 



THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF. 167 

Nor is this all — indeed there is no branch which the tariff does 
not affect. Note here the effect of the low tariff of 1890 on the 
amount of mortgages as compared with that of the Dingley law 
of 1900. Here is food for thought for those farmers whose old 
home is under the shadow of the dreaded mortgage: 

Mr. Rucker — "I now read a table prepared from information ob- 
tained at the Census Bureau and from the Abstract of the Twelfth 
Census : 

1890. 1900. Increase. 

Per cent. 

ortgage indebtedness in the 

United States $6,019,079,985 $8,394,728,733 39.48 

Number of mortgaged liomes 

in the United States 1,696,890 2,361,606 39.11 

Per cent, of families in United 

States owning free homes. 34.4 31.8 .... 

"These statistics show that mortgage indebtedness in the United 
States increased nearly 40 per cent, between 1890 and 1900; that the 
number of mortgaged homes increased over 39 per cent., while the 
percentage of families owning free homes decreased nearly 3 per cent." 

INCREASED COST OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY. 

Extracts from a speech of the Hon. Adam M. Byrd, of Missis- 
sippi delivered in the House April 16, 1906. 

. . . . A manufacturer of farm wagons, in explaining why he 
advanced prices 25 per cent., said: 

"Less than two years ago the president of the great steel corpora- 
tion testified that bar iron and steel could be produced at a profit 
for $12.50 per ton, and for steel we must pay $40, or over 200 per 
cent, profit. The steel magnates tell us that when iron was sold at 
$18 per ton the price was too low and was a breeder of panics; but 
we all recall the fact that in 1893 the Carnegie properties were valued 
at less than $10,000,000, and that after five years of panic and $18 
prices, Mr. Carnegie sold his interest alone in these properties for 
$360,000,000. This was 350 per cent, profit in five years, or 72 per 
cent, annually, and in panic times too. How long, Lord, how long, 
will 'the dear people' be thus fooled?" 

. . . . Speaking of the effect of protection, Alexander Hamilton 
said : 

"Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the 
domestic fabrics." 

To the same effect John Quincy Adams wrote: 

"The duty constitutes a part of the price of the whole mass of the 
article in the market. It is substantially paid upon the article of 
domestic manufacture as well upon that of foreign production. Upon 
one it is a bounty, upon the other a burden, and the repeal of the tax 
must operate as an equivalent reduction of the price of the article, 
whether foreign or domestic." 

. . . . In this connection let me read you a table showing the 
total amount of four leading products imported into the United States 
in 1905, together with the actual per cent, rate of duty paid and 
amount received by the Government: 

Articles. Value. * Duty., Ad valorem 

rate. 

Iron and steel products $22,044,937 $8,422,237 88 per cent. 

Meat products 726,664 254,332 35 " 

Agricultural 13,876 2,775 20 " " 

Glass and glassware 5,776,669 3,311,715 57 *' " 



168 THE FARMERS AXD THE TARIFF. 

The value of these imports plus cost of the transportation and plus 
the duty collected, not only fixed their prices in this market, but 
also the prices of all like domestic products consumed . . . ." 

The Canadian Tariff Commission says: 

"Makers of threshing machines, feeders, stackers, weighers, baggers, 
and portable engines in the United States are selling these things in 
Canada at 35 per cent, below American prices. They say that the 
discounts are that much below what any jobber can obtain them for 
in the United States, and that a trade has been built up which 
amounts to $750,000 a year." 

From a report of the Census Bureau, showing the increase of wages 
per hour, from 1890 to 1903, we find that wages in four protected 
industries have increased less than in non-protected industries. 

Pbotected. 

Boiler makers 0.02 per cent. 

Iron molders 04 " " 

Machinists 02 " " 

Blacksmiths 02 " 

Xox-Pbotected. 

Bricklayers 11 per cent. 

Hod carriers : .06 " " 

Painters 07 " " 

Carpenters 08 " " 

Synopsis of a speech by Hon. Leonidas F. Livingston, September 
12, 1905, before a Virginia Farmers' Convention: 

POINTS. 

1. The Tariff Tax discriminates against the farmer, but is easily 
advocated because it is paid without conscious knowledge. 

2. Economists have shown that the tariff tax is paid as follows: 
four-fifths by the consumer and one-fifth by the exporter and foreign 
manufacturer. 

3. The tariff tax has unduly enriched one class at the expense of 
another. Every time a farmer gets $1.00 the manufacturer gets 
$4.50. 

4. Farmers are one-third of the nation and get one-sixth of the 
increase in national wealth, while the manufacturers, one-fourth of 
the population, receive one-half. 

5. Farmer's wealth doubles in from thirty to forty years; the 
maufacturer's in from ten to twenty years. 

6. The farmer's per capita wealth was about stationary from 1860 
to 1890, while the manufacturer's per capita increased six-fold. 

7. - Of every $238.00 bought by farmers, $18.00 goes to the govern- 
ment and $37.00 to protected trusts. 

8. Protection does not give farmers a market for their goods, 
while insuring one for the manufacturers. 

9. The farmer is the mainstay of the country and his interests 
demand a removal of the legislation which enriches another class 
unnecessarily, and chiefly at the farmer's expense. 

ARGUMENT. 

The protective tariff which gives an advantage to the manufactur- 
ing class and not to other industrial classes, must injuriously affect 
the unprotected classes. If the protected class were in a large 
majority such a tariff might be defended on the principle of the 
greatest good to the greatest number; but if it is in the minority it 
it indefensible upon any principle consistent with Republican institu- 
tions. 



■ . rpjj-^ PjijlMERS AND THE TARIFF. 169 

Now, the entire population of the United States in the year 1900 
was 70,303,387 ; and a little less than 39 per cent, of these were 
iiigaged in gainful pursuits; that is, there were 29,074,117 persons 
fro engaged. These were so divided into five classes according to 
occupation. 

" The manufacturing class contained 7,085,992. The other four 
classes contained 21,988,125, or 14,903,133 more than the manufactur- 
ing class — more than three times as many. According to occupation 
there were : 

• In agriculture 10,381,765 

In trade and transportation 4,706,964 

In domestic and personal service 5,580,657 

These twenty-two million people and all their dependents, consti- 
tuting more than three-foiirths of the entire population of the country, 
are discriminated against by a protective tariff in favor of the seven 
millions of persons engaged in manufacturing; and this is done in 
the name of American labor. 

THE AGRICULTURE CLASS AND THE TARIFF. 

"Now, let us," said Mr. Livingston, "consider how the farmer is 
affected by this system. The farmers constitute more than one-third 
of the whole population. They produce the cereals, the meats, and the 
cotton consumed by our own people." 

He then argued that' the farmers are the exporters of those 
products. They must compete in the markets of the world, and 
cannot, therefore, by any possibility derive any direct benefit from 
a tariff law. Those who produce grain sell about 10 or 15 per cent, 
of their products abroad — never more than 16 per cent. — and yet the 
foreign market fixes the domestic price. They cannot sell cheaper 
abroad than at home; because they have no monopoly of the home 
market. And the same is true of those who produce meats and 
cotton; though the cotton planters sell a larger percentage of their 
crops abroad. The farmers cannot form trusts to prevent competition 
and keep prices high; because they are widely scattered, and also 
because they have not sufficient capital to enable them to hold their 
products for long periods. Their environment compels them to sell 
at prices fixed, not by themselves, but by foreigners, and according 
to the natural law of supply and demand. But when it comes to 
buying, the tariff law of this country controls. They must pay taxes 
on every imported article; and they must pay a price equivalent to 
plus the actual value of every domestic article. 

"THE EFFECT OF THE TARIFF ON RURAL WEALTH. 

"Tliat the farmer is not given a square deal by the operation of 
high protective tariff law is sho\ATi by the effect of these laws on rural 
and urban wealth. 

"The growth of these two classes in wealth is shown by the follow- 
ing table taken from census sources. 

"URBAN AND RURAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Millions of Dollars. Percentage of Total. 

Years. Urban. Rural. Total. Urban. Rural. 

1850 $3,169 $3,967 $7,136 44.4 55.6 

1860 8,190 7,980 16,160 50.6 49.4 

1870 15,155 8,900 24,055 63.0 37.0 

1880 31,538 12,104 43,642 72.2 27.8 

1890 49,055 15,980 65,037 75.4 24.6 

1900 73,786 20,514 94,300 78.2 21.8 



170 



THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF. 



'^From 1850 to 1860, the years of low tariff, rural wealth doubled. 
From 1860 to 1890, during thirty years of high tariff, it barely 
doubled again. And from 1890 to 1900 it increased barely twenty- 
five per cent. 

"On the other hand, urban wealth doubled in every decade, except 
from 1880 to 1890, and from 1890 to 1900; and in these two decades 
the growth was about fifty per cent." * * * 

"Nor is this all. In 1850 the farmer o^vned more than half of the 
country, while in 1900 he owned but little more than one-fifth. 

"While the average per capita wealth of the farmers remained 
practically stationary from 1860 to 1900, that of the urbanites 
increased six-fold. 

"Of the $78,000,000,000 increase in wealth from 1860 to 1900 less 
than one-sixth of it went to the farmers who make up about one-half 
the population; while of the $9,000,000,000 increase during the free 
trade era, 1850 to 1860, more than 44 per cent, of it went to the 
farmers." 

TAXES PAID BY FARMERS. 

"Mr. Byron W. Holt, one of America's greatest economists, has com- 
puted the tariff taxes paid annually by farmers in an admirable 
summary, which I reproduce for a few comments which I wish to 
make upon it. 

THE AVERAGE FARMER'S TARIFF TAXES. 



Purchases. 

Article and Quantity. Cost. 

Sugar, 300 pounds $18 00 

Woolen goods ^ 20 00 

Cotton goods. , 12 00 

Silk goods 4 00 

Linen goods 2 00 

Leather goods 12 00 

Hardware 3 00 

Chinaware 2 00 

Furniture 10 00 

Farm Implements 30 00 

Window glass, one-third box. 1 20 

Other glass 1 50 

Lead, in paints, etc., 30 pounds 2 00 

Chemicals 2 50 

Tin plate, 50 pounds 2 40 

Wire and other nails, 100 lbs. 3 00 

Barb and other wire, 80 lbs . , 3 00 

Liquor, spirits, etc 25 00 

Tobacco 10 00 

Miscellaneous 74 75 

Total $238 35 



Tariff 


Tax Paid 




To U. S. 


To Trusts. 


Total. 


$6 50 


$1 


5u 


$8 00 


1 50 


5 


00 


50 


50 


2 


75 


3 25 


50 


1 


00 


1 50 


20 




25 


45 


40 


1 


60 


2 00 


05 




95 


1 00 


10 




60 


70 


20 


1 


50 


1 70 


25 


5 


00 


5 25 


10 




40 


50 


15 




45 


60 


15 




35 


50 


30 




90 


1 20 


05 




85 


90 


00 




75 


75 


00 


1 


00 


1 00 


50 


2 


50 


3 00 


60 


1 


90 


2 50 


5 95 


7 


85 


13 80 



$18 00 $37 10 $55 10 



"On the average every farmer buys each year of $238.35 in sugar, 
woolen goods, cotton goods, silk goods, etc. Out of this $238.35, the 
tariff tax takes $55.00. If this $55.00 went to the government there 
would be less room to complain, but it does not. The most careful 
calculations show that of the $55.00 tariff tax paid each year by each 
farmer, the government receives $18.00 and the manufacturing trusts 
$37.00. 



THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF. 171 



"OUR FARMER'S SHARE OF THE WORLD'S CROPS. 

"Authentic census figures show that of the agricultural crops of 
the world tlie farmers of the United States furnish the following 
percentages : 

Of Wool 10.8% or one-tenth. 

Of Rye '. 20. % or one-fifth. 

Of Wheat 21.4% or more than one-fifth. 

Of Barley 37.7% or more than two-fifths. 

Of Corn 73. % or more than seven-tenths. 

Of Cotton 82. % or more than eight-tenths. 

"With these figures before you is it difficult to account for our 
national prosperity? We are the feeders of the world, and also the 
clothiers of the world. The farmers of the United States are the 
subseratum upon which our national wealth is laid, and from whom 
the stream of our marvelous prosperity flows with healing power." 

WHAT WE SELL ABROAD. 

Of Oats $1,850,000 

Of Rye 3,143,913 

Of Barley 4,662,541 

Of Fruits 18,057,677 

Of Tobacco 35,250,899 

Of Corn 40,540,837 

Of Wheat 87,795,104 

Of Cotton 317,065,271 

Total ; $508,366,042 

Wliat a splendid record! 

The manufacturers, with all their special privileges and predatory 
methods, have achieved nothing in comparison with it. If power and 
authority are the rewards of merit, the farmers should rule this 
country. If they only knew their own power, they would not submit 
to the injustices and outrages imposed upon them by selfish interests. 
But you ask, how shall they assert themselves? I answer, let them 
exert the only real power they possess, the power of the ballot, for the 
defense of their rights and interests. Their ballots cannot be con- 
trolled by trusts unless they are themselves unworthy. Let them send 
tariff reformers to represent them in Congress. Then, and only then, 
they will get justice. 



172 DEPARTMENTAL SCANDALS. 

DEPARTMENTAL SCANDALS. 

SCANDALS IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 

SECRETARY SHAW'S ABSENTEEISM AND PERNICIOUS 

ACTIVITY— INEFFICIENCY OF THE COMPTROLLER OF 

THE CURRENCY— THE FAILURE OF THE WALSH 

BANKS, THE ENTERPRISE BANK AND 

OTHERS— LITTLE ROGUES PROSECUTED, 

BUT BIG ONES ALLOWED TO ESCAPE. 

In the Treasury Department we find the Secretary neglecting 
the duties of his office, traveling about the country making 
speeches for the stand-patters and carrying on a campaign for 
the Presidential nomination in 1908, but still drawing a salary 
which he does not earn, and setting a bad example for his sub- 
ordinates. 

WALSH BANK FAILURE. 

In the office of the Comptroller of the Currency there have been 
numerous scandals in connection with national banks by reason 
of the negligence or collusion of bank inspectors. The officers of 
some of these banks have practically loaned to themselves under 
one subterfuge and another the entire assets, deposits and every- 
thing else, while the inspectors, either through ignorance or fraud, 
have reported them as sound. One or two cases of recent date 
will illustrate this point. Let us take first the Walsh banks of 
Chicago. The capital of Walsh's banks was: Chicago National, 
$1,000,000; Home Savings, $100,000 (from Chicago Securities, 
1905); Equitable Trust, $500,000, making a total capital of the 
three banks of $1,600,000. The deposits of the Chicago National 
were about $20,000,000; of the Home Savings, $4,000,000, and of the 
Equitable Trust, $2,000,000, making total deposits of $26,000,000. 

Both the State law and the Federal law provide that no bank 
shall lend over 10 per cent, of its capital to any one borrower. 
According to the report there was loaned by Walsh to Walsh 
$15,000,000," or 800 per cent, of the capital of the combined banks. 
These loans were ingeniously handled, so as, if possible, to avoid 
liability. The banks carried a vast amount of bonds of Walsh's 
railroads, coal mines, and stone quarries, and in some cases an 
amount stated to be $2,000,000, was loaned on notes signed by the 
names, but not with the signatures, of people who either were 
ignorant of their names being used, or, at any rate, had no interest 
in the transaction. 

The names of bell boys and other underlings about the bank 
were signed to notes. 

It was contended by Secretary Shaw, as quoted in the Chicago 
press, and not denied by him, that Walsh, in this system of finance, 
did nothing beyond what most banks do in making excess loans. 

Had Walsh succeeded in his plans and made a profit, that profit 
would have been his, and would not have redounded to the benefit 



DEPARTMENTAL SCANDALS. 173 

of either his depositors or his stockholders. As he failed, it was 
merely incidental that the other banks saved his depositors. His 
stockholders certainly lost. 

In May, 1906, Mr. W. T. Fenton, a member of the Chicago Clear- 
ing House, testified before the House Committee on Banking and 
Currency, as follows: 

"The banks of Chicago were called together on a Sunday; the 
members of the clearing house stayed up all night Sunday night; 
they found the Chicago National Banh ums hopelessly insolvent. Not 
a member of the clearing house suspected that there was anything 
wrong with it. 

"The members of the Chicago Clearing House, after sitting up all 
night to avert what they thought would be a calamity, assumed the 
obligations of that bank and took the bank's assets. The immediate 
cause of the failure of that concern was over-loans to concerns in 
which the president of .the hank ivas interested. Correspondence was 
shown at that meeting of the clearing house running back over a 
period of three years — and I am not saying this to cast reflections 
on the Comptroller's department or on any of the examiners or 
oflSicials — but here are the facts, that three years before that bank 
closed the Comptroller's department know that the president of the 
institution had loaned $5,000,000 to a concern in which he was 
interested; and by the night we took over the assets he had used 
$15,000,000 of the assets of that bank. And here is one of the results 
of familiarity with the violation of this law. It had been done so 
long, and had been overlooked and temporized with until it grew and 
grew, and finally absorbed the entire institution; and we were called 
upon, in order to maintain the financial integrity of our city, to 
liquidate that institution, and take its assets and assume its debts." 



THE ENTERPRISE BANK FAILURE. 

The Enterprise National Bank of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, 
failed in October, 1905. It had at the time about $800,000 of State 
funds among its deposits. It had loaned large sums, nearly 
$700,000 in all, to politicians, and to the Santa Fe Central Railroad 
and the Pennsylvania Development Company of New Mexico, 
which were controlled by "Bull" Andrews and other members of 
the old Quay ring. 

This failure was a Republican affair all round. A dispatch to 
the Washington Post, dated Pittsburgh, October 18, 1905, said: 

"It is conceded by all that the expose of today deals one of the 
hardest blows ever suffered by the Republicanism of Pennsylvania! 
Francis J. Torrance, head of the Standard Manufacturing Company 
and one of the leading Republicans of Pennsylvania, has been closely 
identified with the workings of the bank now in the hands of a 
receiver, and he is lying at the point of death. Clarke, the cashier, 
now dead, with W. R. Andrews, formerly of Pittsburg, now Territorial 
Delegate of New Mexico at Washington, and former State Senator 
Arthur Kennedy had, it appears, been in several large deals. One of 
them was the selling of railroad property to the Santa Fe road. The 
option, which, if closed, meant a fortune to each of those named, was 
not taken up by the Santa Fe people on Saturday, but was allowed to 
expire." 

The Treasury Department doesn't interfere with such men, 
unless they fail outright, nor until the matter can no longer be 
concealed. No doubt, the political complexion of such affairs 



174 DEPARTMENTAL &C AND ALB. 

had also much to do with the refusal of a Republican Congress to 
pass the Tillman resolution, directing the Committee on Finance 
to inquire whether or not the national banks have made contribu- 
tions in aid of political committees. 

CASSIE CHADWICK GOES TO PRISON, BUT THE BIG 
ROGUES ALL GO FREE. 

After exposures have been made by outsiders, and when con- 
cealment is no longer possible, the Government takes hold and 
eagerly prosecutes small culprits without political connections or 
influence, like Cassie Chadwick and people of that class, and then 
boasts of its great work. In a statement made by Mr. Watson, 
of Indiana, in the House of Representatives, June 27, 1906, it was. 
said: 

"The Government has beqji very vigilant in enforcing the national 
banking laws. Under this Administration several important cases 
have been tried. 

"The celebrated Cassie Chadwick case in Ohio Avas prosecuted by 
the Government, and the defendant was sentenced to a term of ten 
years in the Ohio penitentiary for conspiracy in the misappropriation 
of the funds of the Citizen's National Bank of Oberlin, Ohio. 

"Arthur B. Speer was jointly indicted with Cassie Chadwick and 
was sentenced to seven years in the penitentiary. 

"In the northern district of Iowa, W. R. Brown, a national bank 
official, was indicted for violation of the national bank laws. He was 
sentenced to five years in the penitentiary." 

But what about the looting of the great Maverick Bank, of 
Boston, the Walsh banks of Chicago, the Enterprise National 
Bank, of Allegheny, Pa., and the numerous other banks run in 
the interest of Republicans and looted by them? Why has not 
the administration prosecuted the criminals in those cases? 
Cassie Chadwick and the other little criminals went to jail, of 
course. But the great criminals, who habitually violate the bank- 
ing laws in the way that Walsh did, are not disturbed, because 
they have political influence. 

Are they able to contribute large sums to Republican campaign 
funds? 



WHAT WAS DONE DURING THE CANVA88. 17^ 



WHAT WAS DONE DURING THE CANVASS LAST YEAR 

(1896) BY NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW 

YORK LEADS TO CORRUPT SALE OF 

NEW YORK CUSTOM HOUSE. 

A CONTINUOUS SCANDAL FROM 1896 TO 1906 AND THE 
END NOT IN SIGHT. UNDER A REPUBLICAN 
ADMINISTRATION. 

''LEST WE FORGET." 

Mr. A. B. Hepburn promptly reminded Mr. Gage of "what was done 
during the last canvass" (189G), by the National City Bank, and in 
1897 asks a fair return: 

National City Bank of New York, 

New York, June 5, 1397. 
My Dear Mr. Gage: The National City Bank, of this city, of 
wbich I recently became vice-president through the consolidation of 
the business of the Third National with it, is one of the banks desig- 
nated as a United States depository, and I write to request that in 
any changes whicli may be made luuler the administration we may 
not be disturbed in this respect. We should like to remain a United 
States depository as at present. Of course the bank is very strong, 
and if you will take the pains to look at our list of directors you loill 
see that ice also have very great political claims in view of what was 
done during the canvass last year. 

Yours very truly, 

A. B. Hepburn. 
Hon. Lyman J. Gage, 

United States Treasury, Washington, D. C. 

The favor was granted. 

Having again aided in the election of a Republican Congress 
in the next election, this bank asks for and receives another favor, 
which was "conceived in iniquity and born in sin," designed to 
be a fraud, is a continuing scandal and an outrage on the State of 
and city of New York and the Federal Government. 



176 MLE OF NEW YORK GUBfOM HOUSE. 



SALE NEW YORK CUSTOM HOUSE PROPERTY, 

STILL EXEMPT FROM TAXES BY A "TRICK" OF GAGE AND 
THIS BANK. 

The sale of the old custom house in New York city is one of 
the chief blots in the McKinley administration. This fraud and 
scandal was engineered by Secretary Gage in July, 1899. He sold 
the custom house on Wall street in New York to the National 
City Bank, a Rockefeller establishment, for the price of $3,265,000, 
about one third the value of the property, which is said to be 
worth fully $10,000,000. 

This transaction is understood to have followed a munificent 
contribution to Mr. Hanna's fund in 1896. It has been said that 
this property, now considered to be worth $10,000,000, has been 
practically transferred to the bank by the skill of a bookkeeper, 
without the actual transfer of one solitary cent of money beyond 
the contribution to the campaign fund. It is the most marvelous 
transaction in history. The Secretary of the Treasury deposits 
with the bank from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000 of United States 
funds without interest. The bank in making payment for the 
property simply credited the Government's account with $3,215,000, 
leaving an unpaid^ balance of $50,000. The Government continues 
to occupy the building, paying the bank &, rental therefor of 
$130,600 a year. In the ten years the bank draws in rentals from 
the Government $1,306,000 and in interest on Government deposits 
probably another million. In the meantime, the Government 
declines to even receive a credit for the $50,000 balance on the 
building, thus saving for the bank. State and city taxes in ten 
years, amounting to $750,000, since the title does not pass from 
the Government until that $50,000 is paid. 

The Democrats in Congress have year after year opposed the 
appropriation of money from the Treasury to pay rent under this 
contract, and in 1905, succeeded in striking out the item for that 
purpose. 

But, as a rule, the payments have been regularly provided for 
in the Sundry Civil bill; and this year (1906) that bill carried 
the usual item of $130,600 for the rental of a house to which the 
Government still holds the title; and, moreover, the General 
Deficiency bill carried a similar appropriation to cover the 
deficiency caused by striking the item from the Sundry Civil bill 
last year. The fact that such an item was in the General 
Deficiency bill was guarded with the utmost secrecy. No mention 
of it was made in the report of the Appropriations Committee. 
But when the bill was under consideration in the House, on June 
26, 1906, Mr. Sulzer, who has directed the fight on the floor of 
the House against this appropriation for the last six or seven 
years, made a point of order against the appropriation. 

"The Chair holds that this is a debt owed by the Government 
and that it should be paid," said Mr. Crumpacker, of Indiana, 
who was temporarily presiding. 



SALE OF NEW YORK CUSTOM HOUSE. 177 



"If it is a just debt tlie National City Bank can recover tlirougli 
the Court of Claims," Mr. Sulzer said. "It is the same old steal. 
That bank is withholding $50,000 of the purchase price from the 
Government for the sole purpose of defrauding the State and city 
of New York of taxes. So long as the bank does not pay the 
$50,000, the deed and title to the custom house property remains 
with the Government." 

Mr. Fitzgerald, of Brooklyn, said the contract was a scandal 
and a disgrace. 

Mr. Sulzer's motion was lost — 65 to 88. Every Republican in 
the House, except McCreary, of Pennsylvania, voted against it. 

John Wesley Gaines, of Tennessee, moved to deduct the $50,000 
owed by the National City Bank to the Government from the 
$130,600 appropriation for rent and give the bank a deed for the 
property, so that the State and city of New York could collect 
the taxes. This was voted down — 72 to 40 — the Republicans 
voting no. 

After getting the custom house property for nothing, and 
receiving 4 per cent, interest, under the name of rent, on what 
it pretended to have paid to the Government under the spurious 
contract, the National City Bank made Lyman J. Gage president 
of the United States Trust Company and his assistant, F. A. 
Vanderlip, vice-president of the bank itself. In view of the many 
profitable privileges which have lately been granted to the same 
bank, the question is often asked whether Secretary Shaw is also: 
to become the head of a metropolitan banking institution con- 
trolled by National City Bank and Standard Oil capital. 

Here are some of the letters that passed between the president 
of this bank and Secretary Gage, which show they are both guilty 
of this infamous outrage: 

The National City Bank of New Y^oek, 

New York, August 18, 1899. 

Dear 8ir: In accordance with the permission given us when I had 
the pleasure of speaking witli you over the telephone today, this bank 
will transfer on its books tomorrow, August 19, to the credit of the 
Treasurer of the United States, the sum of $3,215,000 as payment on 
account of our purchase of the old custom house property, for whicli 
we will issue the customary receipt. Please instruct the Assistant 
Treasurer of the United States in this city to receive and hold as 
security for public moneys the required amount of United States 
bonds. 

As the check for $150,000, inclosed with our bid and now in your 
possession, has not been used, Avill you kindly return it to us ? 

We shall make the above payment of $3,215,000 upon the under- 
standing, of course, that we are not to be liable for any taxes or Avater 
rates upon the property so long as you remain in possession and the 
balance of $50,000 remains unpaid and the deed is undelivered. 

We presume you are forwarding today the deed and contract, as the 
same were sent to you last Wednesday. 

It seems from an examination of the title that the property contains 
583 square feet less than we supposed, owing to the fact that the city 
has used a portion of the original tract as a street, and our attorneys 
advise us that it has had possession so long that probably we could 
not regain possession of it even after a protracted litigation. 

Will you please give us a formal certificate, under seal, stating what 
notice you gave, by advertisement or otherwise, of the sale of the 
custom house property, and that, in your judgment, this was in com- 
pliance with the act of Congress, in respect to due advertisement. 



178 DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 

Assuring you of our appreciation of your attention, I am, 
Yours very truly, 

James Stillman, 

President. 
Hon. Lyman J. Gage, 

{Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. G. 

— House Document 264, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session. 

Here is part of Gage's reply, August 21, 1899: 

As to the taxes against said property, you are advised that the 
Department's understanding of this matter is just the same as yours, 
and that until we deliver you the deed you will not have to pay the 
taxes to the city of New York. 



DEMOCRATS FIRST TO RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED 
LABOR. 

FIRST TO INTRODUCE ANDENFORCE AN EIGHT-HOUR LAW. 

The Democratic party met in convention in New York in July, 
1868, nominated Horatio Seymour for President and in its plat- 
form inserted the following plank: 

Resolved, That this convention sympathize cordially with the 
workingmen of the United States in their efforts to protect the rights 
and interests of the laboring classes of the country. 

The Republican party met in May of the same year in Chicago 
and nominated Ulysses S. Grant for President, but failed to men- 
tion a single sentence in its platform about the laboring classes 
or organized labor. 

The unions appealed, through their representatives, to the 
Democratic convention for succor and aid, with the above result. 
Thus, the party of Jackson and Jefferson has the honor of being 
the first to champion in its platform the interests of organized 
labor — an enviable distinction. 

Nor was this all which they did for the cause of labor. The 
first eight-hour law ever introduced in the House of Representa- 
tives was brought in by a Democrat, Mr. Rogers, of New Jersey. 
But his efforts were in vain, for the Congress was Republican and 
the bill died in the committee room. 

Again a Democrat attempted to aid the labor party by intro- 
ducing in the Thirty-ninth Congress another eight-hour law. But 
the Republicans — then in power — quietly buried it. 

The same fate was doled out to the Rogers eight-hour bill, rein- 
troduced by Mr. Julian, of Indiana, March 14, 1867. 

Against the protest of such Republicans as John Sherman, 
General Banks by the aid of Senator Thomas A. Hendricks, 
finally got an eight-hout law passed in 1868. 

But what was the fate of this law, once it was enacted? It 
slept upon the statute books during Republican administrations, 
but was strongly enforced when the Democrats were in power. 



DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 179 

It is safe to say there has not been a statute enacted by Con- 
gress for the relief of the "Workingmen of the United States," or 
"Organized Labor," that the Democrats have not given it their 
hearty support. 

THE DEMOCRACY AND ORGANIZED LABOR. 

"WE ARE OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION: 
WE DENOUNCE THE BLACK LIST: AND WE FAVOR ARBITRA- 
TION AS A MEANS OF SETTLING DISPUTES BETWEEN COR- 
PORATIONS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES." (Democratic Platform 
of 1000.) 

"We especially object to government by injunction as a new and 
highly dangerous form of oppression, by which Federal judges, in 
contempt of the laws of the States and the rights of the citizen, become 
at once legislators, judges and executioners, and we approve the bill 
recently passed by ine United States Senate, and now pending in 
the House, relative to contempts in Federal courts, and providing for 
trials hj jury in certain cases of contempt." — Democratic Platform of 
180G, reaffirmed in 1900. ^ 

"We favor the enactment and administration of laAVS giving labor 
and capital impartially their just rights. Capital and labor ougni, not 
to be enemies. Each is necessary to ine other. Each has its rights, 
but the rights of labor are certainly no less 'vested', no less 'sacred' 
and no less 'inalienable' than the rights of capital. 

"We favor arbitration of differences between corporate employers 
and their employees, and a strict enforcement of the eight-hour law 
on all Government work. 

"We approve the measure lohich passed tJie United States Senate 
in 1896, but lohicli a Republican Congress has ever since refused to 
enact, relating to contempts in Federal courts and providing for trial 
by jury in cases of indirect contempt." 

The prominence given to the dispute between organized labor 
and its enemies by the attitude of Speaker Cannon, Mr. Littlefteld, 
of Maine, and the present administration in this campaign, makes 
it proper to review in this place the record of the Democratic and 
Republican parties on the labor question. 

On February 26, 1900, Mr. Ridgely, of Kansas, introduced a bill 
(H. R. 8917, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session): 

"To limit the meaning of the word 'conspiracy' and also the use 
of restraining orders, and injunctions as applied to disputes between 
employers and employees in the District of Columbia and the Terri- 
tories, or engaged in commerce between the several States, District of 
Columbia and Territories, and with foreign nations." 

The bill was drawn, according to Mr. Ridgely, "by the attorneys 
employed by the united labor organizations of this country." It 
was drawn "in the belief that it would com.e within the constitu- 
tional limits." (Congressional Record, February 18, 1901, p. 
2592.) It provided: 

"That no agreement, combination, or contract by or between two 
or more persons to do, or procure to be done, or not to do, or procure 
not to be done, any act in contemplation or furtherance of any trade 
dispute between employers and employees in the District of Columbia, 
or in any Territory of the United States, or who may be engaged in 
trade or commerce between any Territory and another, or between 
any Territory or Territories and any State or States, or the District 
of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Colum- 
bia and any State or States or foreign nations, shall be deemed crimi- 



180 DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 

nal ; nor shall those engaged therein be indictable or otherwise punish- 
able for the crime of conspiracy, if such act committed by one person 
would not be punishable as a crime (nor shall such agreement, combi- 
nation, or contract be considered as in restraint of trade or commerce), 
nor shall any restraining order or injunction be issued with relation 
thereto." (C. R. vol. 34, p. 2592.) 

Two reports were made on this bill. The majority report, sub- 
mitted by Mr. Littlefield, of Maine, was concurred in by the other 
ten Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee. It 
will be found in the Congressional Record, vol. 34, p. 2590. It 
proposed to amend the Ridgely bill, by striking out the words, 
"nor shall such agreement, combination or contract be considered 
as in restraint of trade or commerce," and by adding the following 
proviso: 

"That the provisions of this act shall not apply to threats to injure 
the person or the property, business, or occupation of any person, firm, 
association, or corporation, to intimidation or coercion, or to any 
acts causing or intended to cause any illegal interference, by overt 
acts, with the rights of others. Nothing in this act shall exempt 
from punishment, otherwise than as herein excepted, any person 
guilty of conspiracy, for which punishment is, now provided by any 
act of Congress, but such act of Congress shall, as to the agreements, 
combinations, and contracts hereinbefore referred to, be construed as 
if this act were therein contained." (C. R., p. 2592, Vol. 34.) 

The representatives of organized labor vigorously opposed these 
amendments; and the five Democratic members of the committee 
supported the position of the labor men, and filed a minority 
report, in which they said: 



"It is clear to our minds that it was never the legislative intent 
that the Sherman anti-trust law of July 2, 1890, which prohibits 
contracts and agreements 'in restraint of trade and commerce,' should 
apply to cooperative efforts of workingmen in contemplation or 
furtherance of a trade dispute, especially when such efforts, if put 
forth by a single individual, would not constitute a crime. 

"The first amendment proposed by the majority strikes out the 
words 'Nor shall such agreement, combination, or contract be con- 
sidered as in restraint of trade or commerce." 

"There is no sufficient reason for striking out these words. They 
do not say that 'no agreement, combination or contract,' etc., made 
by employees shall be considered in restraint of trade; but the 
language is 'no such agreement/ etc. ; that is, no agreement, etc., to 
do an act, etc., which, if done by a single individual, would not con- 
stitute a crime. Within that limitation, and that alone, would the 
acts of employees be taken out of the operation of the Sherman anti- 
trust law by the pending bill. 

"The majority report does not seem to recognize this important 
distinction. 

"We think the words stricken out should remain in the bill. 

"The second amendment proposed by the majority is the insertion 
of the following proviso at the end of the seventh line on the second 
page. 

"Provided, That tlie provisions of this act shall not apply to threat 
to injure the person or the property, business or occupation of any 
person, firm or association or corporation, to intimidation or coercion, 
or to any acts causing or intended to cause any illegal interference 
by overt acts with the rights of others." 

"If we had well-defined meanings for the terms 'threats to injure,' 
'intimidations,' 'coercion,' 'acts causing or intended to cause an illegal 
interference,' etc., there might be no special objection to the purpose 



DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 



181 



intended by this amendment. But in the absence of such well-defined 
ideas the effect of this amendment will be either ( 1 ) to permit (and 
even to suggest by implication) such latitude of judicial construction 
as mighi. negative all the good in the bill, or (2) to encumber the 
statute with a useless declaration of principles of recognized law." 
(Cong. Record, p. 2591, vol. 34.) 

This report was signed by Messrs. Terry, Clayton, Smith, 
Fleming and DeArmond. 

Speeches were made against the amendments by Messrs. Clay- 
ton, Fleming, Ridgely and Terry, and for the amendments by 
Messrs. Littlefield, Overstreet and Ray. 

Mr. Littlefield moved "a suspension of the rules in order to put 
on its passage the bill with the amendments reported by the 
committee. (Cong. Record, vol. 34, p. 2589.) And the following 
members voted for that motion: 



Alexander 

Bailey, Kan. 

Bishop 

Bowei-eiOck 

Brick 

Brosius 

Brownlow 

Bull 

Burke, S. D. 

Burkett, 

Cannon 

Capron 

Cochrane, N. Y. 

Crumpacker 



Curtis 

Dalzell 

Dayton 

Emerson 

Esch 

Gardner, 

Gibson 

Graham 

Hall 

Ilaugen 

Haw ley 

Hepburn 

Hill 

Hitt 



N. J. 



Hopkins 


Ray, N. Y. 


Jack 


Reeves 


Kerr, Ohio. 


Roberts 


iiacey 


Smith, Iowa. 


La u ham 


Spalding 


i.irrlpfield 


Steele 


rjoudenslagcr 


Stewart, N. Y 


Lybrand 


Tayler, Ohio. 


Mondell 


Van Voorhis 


Morris 


Vreeland 


Mudd 


Wright 


O'Grady 


Young 


Overstreet 




Payne 





The following members were paired: 

Mr. Sherman with Mr. Driggs. 

Mr. Metcalf with Mr. Wheeler, of Kentucky. 

Mr. Henry C. Smith with Mr. Taylor, of Alabama. 

For this day : 

Mr. Eddy with Mr. Carmack. 

Mr. Hull with Mr. Hay. 

Mr. Mann with Mr. Jett. 

Mr. Butler with Mr. Rliea, of Virginia. 

Mr. Dovener with Mr. Polk. 

Mr. Boutell, of Illinois, with Mr, Griggs. 

Mr. Freer with Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Woods with Mr. Noonan. 

Mr. Cannon with Mr. McRae. 

Mr. Tawney with Mr. De Graff enreid. 

Mr. Loud with Mr. Livingston. 

Mr. Hemenway with Mr. Howard. 

Mr. Weymouth with Mr. King. 

Mr. Kahn with Mr. Cooper, of Texas. 

Mr. Gaston. (Cong. Record, p. 2598, vol. 34.) 

The Record show^s that Mr. Cannon voted for Littlefield's 
motion. 

Littlefield's motion v/as defeated by the Democrats, aided by a 
few Republicans, among whom were Moody, of Massachusetts, 
now Attorney-General, and Cooper, of Wisconsin. 

Nothing further was done in regard to the Ridgely bill in the 
Fifty-sixth Congress. But early in the Fifty-seventh Congress, 
Mr. Grosvenor, Republican, of Ohio, introduced one very similar 
to it, entitled, "a bill to limit the meaning of the word 'conspiracy,' 
and the use of 'restraining orders and injunctions' in certain 
cases." 

The Grosvenor bill differed from the Ridgely bill only by adding 
the following clause: 



"Nothing in this act shall exempt from punishment, otherwise than 
as herein excepted, any persons guilty of conspiracy for which punish- 



182 DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORG Am ZED LABOR. 



ment is now provided by any act of Congress; but such act of 
Congress shall, as to the agreements, combinations, and contracts 
hereinbefore referred to, be construed as if this act were therein con- 
tained." This bill was favored by organized labor. It passed the 
House of Representatives May 2, 1902, without a dissenting voice or 
vote, as the following extract from the Record of that date shows: 

"Mr. Ray, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H. R. 
11060) to limit the m.eaning of the word 'conspiracy' and the use of 
'restraining orders and injunctions' in certain cases. 

"The bill was read, as follows: 

"Be it enacted, etc., That no agreement, combination or contract 
by or between two or more persons to do or procure to be done, or not 
to do or procure not to be done, any act in contemplation or futlier- 
ance of any trade dispute between employers and employees in the 
District of Columbia or in any Territory of the United States, or 
between employers and employees who may be engaged in trade or com- 
merce between the several States, or between any Territory and 
another, or between any Territory or Territories and any State or 
States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, between 
the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, 
shall be deemed criminal, nor shall those engaged therein be indictable 
or otherwise punishable for the crime of conspiracy, if such act com- 
mitted by one person would not be punishable as a crime, nor shall 
such agreement, combination or contract be considered as in restraint 
of trade or commerce, nor shall any restraining order or injunction 
be issued with relation thereto. Nothing in this act shall exempt 
from punishment, otherwise than as herein excepted, any persons 
guilty of conspiracy for which punishment is now provided by any act 
of Congress, but such act of Congress shall, as to the agreements, 
combinations and contracts hereinbefore referred to, be construed as 
if this act were therein contained. 

"Mr. Ray, of New York. Mr. Speaker, if there is no comment 
desired, I move the previous question. 

"The Speaker. The gentleman from New York moves the previous 
question. 

"The previous question was ordered; and under the operation 
thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and 
being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed. 

"On motion of Mr. Ray, of New York, a motion to reconsider the 
vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table." (Cong. 
Record, vol. 35, p. 4995.) 

When the bill reached the Senate it was referred to the 
Judiciary Committee of that-body which was at that time com- 
posed of Senators Hoar, Piatt, of Connecticut, Clark, of Wyoming, 
Fairbanks, Simon, Nelson, McGomas and Depew (Republicans), 
and Bacon, Pettus, Turner, Culberson and Blackburn (Democrats). 
On May 23, 1902, Senator Hoar submitted for that committee a 
favorable report on the Grosvenor bill (H. R. 11060.) (See 
Senate Report 1650, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.) 

Nothing was done with the bill until June 25, 1902, v/hen its 
consideration was objected to by Senator Kean (Republican), of 
New Jersey, and it was postponed indefinitely. (See Cong. 
Record, p. 7380.) 

Only by imputing the vilest treachery to those who voted for 
it in the House, can it be assumed that they knew in advance 
that it would be defeated in the Senate, and passed it merely to 
deceive the labor unions. 

In the Fifty-eighth Congress, it was again in-troduced by Mr. 
Grosvenor, but' it was pigeon-holed by the Judiciary Committee 
of the House. (See H. R. 6782.) 



DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 183 



In the Fifty-ninth Congress the same bill was introduced by- 
Mr. Little, of Arkansas. (See H. R. 4445.) Samuel Gompers, of 
the American Federation of Labor, Andrew Furuseth, represent- 
ing the Seamen's Union, and other representatives of organized 
labor, appeared in advocacy of the bill. 

The administration antagonized this bill and favored a bill 
said to have been prepared by the Attorney-General with the 
President's approval. This bill is known as the Gilbert bill— 
H. R. 9328— which is as follows: 

''{II. R. 9328, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.) 
A bill to regulate the granting of restraining orders in certain 
cases. 

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRE- 
SENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 
CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, That in cases involving or growing out 
of labor disputes neither an injunction nor a temporary restraining 
order shall be granted except upon due notice to the opposite party 
by the court in term, or by a judge thereof in vacation, after hearing, 
which may be ex parte if the adverse party docs not appear at the 
time and place ordered: Provided, Tliat nothing herein contained 
shall be held to authorize the issuing of a restraining order or an 
injunction in any case in which the same is no.t authorized by existing 
law." 

One labor representative, Mr. Fuller, advocated the administra- 
tion bill, but expressed his willingness to have the bill — H. R. 
4445 — reported favorably by the committee. He did not oppose 
the latter bill, but thought it better to take one which had the 
backing of the administration, because such a bill would be most 
likely to receive respectful consideration from a Republican 
Congress. 

Another bill (H. R. 18171) was introduced by Mr. Pearre 
(Republican) embodying some extremely radical provisions. 

After several hearings, in which various interests took part, 
the whole matter was postponed until the next session of Con- 
gress and those labor representatives, like Gompers, who advo- 
cated a measure which had already passed the House unanimously 
and had been endorsed by all the labor unions of the country, are 
aggrieved. 

The action of Congress on January 26, in passing the bill abro- 
gating the eight-hour law, the alien contract labor law and the 
Chinese exclusion act as to labor employed in the construction of 
the Panama Canal, was in defiance of the labor unions of the 
country. The resolution and vote on that subject will be found 
under the head of yea-and-nay votes in the House, elsewhere in 
this volume. 

The following document discloses the attitude of organized 
labor towards those persons whom Mr. Roosevelt in his letter to 
Representative Watson, describes as the men "responsible for the 
handling of the present Congress:" 



184 DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 



LABOR'S GRIEVANCES. 

Washington, D. C, March 21, 1906. 
Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, 

President of the United States; 
Hon. Wm. P. Frye, 

President pro tempore United States Senate; 
Hon. Joseph G. Cannon, 

Speaker House of Representatives, United States. 

Gentlemen: The undersigned executive council of the American 
Federation of Labor, and those accompanying us in the presentation 
of this document, submit to you the subject-matter of the grievances 
whicli the wori^men of our country feel by reason of the indifferent 
» position which the Congress of the United States has manifested 
toward the just, reasonable, and necessary measures which have been 
before it these past several years, and which particularly affect the 
interests of the working people, as well as by reason of the adminis- 
trative acts of the executive branches of this Government and the 
legislation of the Congress relating to these interests. For con- 
venience, the matters of which we complain are briefly stated, and 
are as follows: 

The law commonly known as the "eight-hour law" has been found 
ineffective and insufficient to accomplish the purpose of its designers 
and framers. Labor has, since 1894, urged the passage of a law so as 
to remedy the defects, and for its extension to all work done for or on 
behalf of the Government. Our efforts nave been in vain. 

Without hearing of any kind granted to those who are the advocates 
of the eight-hour law and principle, Congress passed, and the Presi- 
dent signed, an appropriation bill containing a rider nullifying the 
eight-hour law and principle in its application to the greatest public 
work ever undei;taken by our Government, the construction of the 
Panama Canal. 

The eight-hour law in terms provides that those intrusted with the 
supervision of Government work shall neither require nor permit any 
violations thereof. The law has been grievously and frequently 
violated. The violations have been reported to the heads of several 
Departments, who have refused to take the necessary steps for its 
enforcement. 

While recognizing the necessity for the employment of inmates of 
our penal institutions, so that they may be self-supporting, labor has 
urged in vain the enactment of a law that shall safeguard it from the 
competition of the labor of convicts. 

In the interest of all of our people, and in consonance with their 
almost general demand, we have urged Congress for some tangible 
relief from the constantly growing evil of induced and undesirable 
immigration, but without result. 

Hecognizing the danger of Chinese immigration, and responsive to 
the demands of the people. Congress years ago enacted an effective 
Chinese-exclusion law; yet, despite the experience of the people of our 
own country, as well as those of other countries, the present law is 
flagrantly violated, and now by act of Congress it is seriously proposed 
to invalidate that law and reverse the policy. 

The partial relief secured by the laws of 1895 and 1898, providing 
that seamen shall not be compelled to endure involuntary servitude, 
has been seriously threatened at each succeeding Congress. The 
petitions to secure for the seamen equal right with all others have 
been denied, and a disposition shown to extend to other workmen the 
system of c&mpulsory labor. 

Under the guise of a bill to subsidize the shipping industry, a pro- 
vision is incorporated, and has already passed the Senate, providing 
for a term of conscription, which would make ^compulsory naval 
service a condition precedent to employment on privately owned 
vessels. 

Having in mind the terrible and unnecessary loss of life attending 
the burning of the Slocum in the harbor of New York, the wreck of 



DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 185 

the Rio de Janeiro at the entrance to tlie bay of Han Francisco, and 
other disasters on tlie waters too numerous to mention, in nearly every 
ease the great loss of life was due to the undermanning and the 
unskilled manning of such vessels, we presented to Congress measures 
that would, if enacted, so far as human law could do, make impossible 
the awful loss of life. We have sought this remedy more in the 
interests of ■ the traveling public than in tliat of the seamen, but in 
vain. 

Having in mind the constantly increasing evil growing out of the 
parsimony of corporations, of towing several undermanned and un- 
equipped vessels called "barges" on the high seas, where, in case of 
storm or stress, they are cut loose to drift or sink and their crews to 
perish, we have urged the passage of a law that shall forbid the 
towing of more than one such vessel unless they shall have an equip- 
ment and a crew sufficient to manage them when cut loose and sent 
adrift, but in vain. 

The antitrust and interstate commerce laws enacted to protect the 
people against monopoly in the products of labor and against dis- 
crimination in the transportation thereof, have been perverted, so far 
as the laborers are concerned, so as to invade and violate their personal 
liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution. Our repeated efforts to 
obtain redress from Congress have been in vain. 

The beneficent writ of injunction, intended to protect property 
rights has, as used in labor disputes, been perverted so as to attack 
and destroy personal freedom and in a manner to hold that the 
employer has some property rights in the labor of tlie workman. 
Instead of obtaining the relief which labor has sought, it is seriously 
threatened with statutory authority for existing judicial usurpation. 

The Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives was 
instituted at the demand of labor to voice its sentiments, to advocate 
its rights, and to protect its interests. In the past two Congresses 
this committee has been so organized as to make ineffectual any 
attempt labor lias made for redress. This being the fact in the last 
Congress, labor requested the Speaker to appoint on the Committee 
on Labor members who, from their experience, knowledge, and 
sympathy, would render in this Congress such service as the com- 
mittee was originally designed to perform. Not only was labor's 
request ignored, but the hostile make-up of the committee was 
accentuated. 

Recently the President issued an order forbidding any and all 
Government employees, upon the pain of instant dismissal from the 
Government service, to petition Congress for any redress of grievances 
or for any improvement in their condition. Thus the constitutional 
right of citizens to petition must be surrendered by the Government 
employee in order that he may obtain or retain his employment. 

We present these grievances to your attention because we have 
long, patiently, and in vain waited for redress. There is not any 
matter of which we have complained but for which we have in an 
honorable and lawful manner submitted remedies. The remedies for 
these grievances proposed by labor are in line with fundamental law, 
and with the progress and development made necessary by changed 
industrial conditions. 

Labor brings these, its grievances, to your attention because you 
are the representatives responsible for legislation and for failure 
of legislation. The toilers come to you as your fellow-citizens who, 
by reason of their position in life, have not only with . all other 
citizens an equal interest in our country, but the further interest 
of being the burden-bearers, the wage-earners of America. As labor's 
representatives we ask you to redress these grievances, for it is in 
your power so to do. 



lU DBMOCilATIS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZE LABOR. 

Labor now appeals to you, and we trust that it may not be in vain. 
But if perchance you may not heed us, we shall appeal to tlie con- 
Bcience and the support of our fellow-citizens. 
Very respectfully, 

Samuel Gompers, James Duncan, James O'Connell, Max 
Morris, D. A. Hayes, Daniel J. Keefe, Wm. D. 
Huber, Joseph F. Valentine, John B. Lennon, Frank 
Morrison, executive council, American Federation 
of Labor.— ( Cong. Record, July 16, vol. 40, p. 10172.) 

See further on this subject the extracts from the messages, 
addresses and historical writings of Theodore Roosevelt relating 
to small farmers, mechanics and laborers, and the report of 
Attorney-General Moody in prosecutions under the anti-trust laws, 
elsewhere in this volume. 

MR. ROOSEVELT ON ORGANIZED LABOR. 

He regards representatives of labor unions as members of the 
"rogue's gallery," "sleek, oily fellows," "bulls of Bashan," "lazy, 
selfish, brutal, envious, violent, murderous," "a mob." 

Mr. Roosevelt has recently issued an executive order requiring 
the enforcement of the eight-hour law, which has heretofore, 
under his administration, been a dead letter. The result of the 
elections in Maine this year and the hostile attitude of organized 
labor in other States toward its enemies in Congress has driven 
him against his will to perform a plain statutory obligation. 
Organized labor so understands it, and the public so understand it. 

Mr. Roosevelt's hostility to the labor element is no secret. He 
has expressed it in his books, in his official utterances and by his 
acts. 

In his book entitled "Ranch Life and Hunting Trail," comparing 
the Western cowboys with other classes of citizens, Mr. Roosevelt 
says: 

"They are much better fellows and pleasanter companions than 
small farmers or agricultural laborers; nor are the mechanics and 
laborers and workmen of a great city to be mentioned in the same 
breath." (Ranch Life and Hunting Trial, pp. 9 and 10.) 

In "American Ideals," referring to a delegation of labor men 
who appeared before a committee of the New York Legislature, 
he describes them in his "Am^erican Ideals," vol. 1, p. 105, as "the 
rogue's gallery." One of the labor men who spoke he describes 
as a "sleek, oily little fellow, with a black moustache, who had 
never done a stroke of work in his life," and another as "a fellow- 
professional of another type — a great, burly man who would speak 
of the Wrongs (with a capital W) of Labor (with a capital L) 
and bellow as if he had been a 'bull of Bashan.' " 

Again he says: 

"The men who object to what they style 'government by injunction' 
are, as regards the essential principles of government, in hearty 
sympathy with their remote skin-clad ancestors who lived in caves, 
fought one another with stone-headed axes, and ate the mammoth 
wooly rhinoceros. 



DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 187 

"They are interesting as representing a geological survival, but 
they are dangerous whenever there is the least chance of their making 
the principles of this ages-buried past living factors in our present 
life. 

"They are not in sympathy with men of good minds and sound 
civic morality." (Roosevelt's American Ideals, Vol. 2, p. 18.) 

The following expressions are taken from his annual message 
of December 5, 1905, in which he dwelt at great length upon the 
relations of labor and capital: 

"There has been a demand for depriving courts of the power to issue 
injunctions in labor disputes. Such special limitation of the equity 
powers of our courts would be most unwise." . . . 

"We can get justice and right dealing only if we put as of para- 
mount importance the principle of treating a man on his worth as a 
man rather than with reference to his social position, his occupation, 
or the class to which he belongs. There are selfish and brutal men 
in all ranks of life. . . . 

"If they are laborers, their selfishness and brutality may take the 
form of laziness, of sullen envy of the more fortunate, and of willing- 
ness to perform deeds of murderous violence .... and all 
honest and far-seeing men should join in warring against it, when- 
ever it becomes manifest." . . . 

"The downfall of republics has been due to tlie class spirit, the 
growth of the spirit which tends to make a man subordinate the 
welfare of the public, as a whole, to the Avelfare of the particular class 
to which he belongs, the substitution of loyalty to a class for loyalty 
to the nation. . . . 

" . . . . This government is not, and never shall be, a govern- 
ment by a mob." 

The views of the members of the American Federation of Labor 
on these points will be found in the speeches of Mr. Andrew 
Furuseth and Mr. Samuel Gompers, reported in the hearing before 
the committee of the House of Representatives, Fifty-ninth Con- 
gress, first session, in relation to anti-injunction and restraining 
orders. These views are reasonable and just. Mr. Gompers, the 
president of the American Federation of Labor, having in mind 
the remarks of the President, said: 

"You will observe that the enjoining of men from committing any 
criminal act, Ave contend, is an improper exercise of the power of the 
equity court; yet some of our opponents would have it appear that 
we favor criminal acts, or that we favor their commission. 

"But Ave contend tliat the Avrit of injunction Avas never intended to 
be issued to enjoin men from committing any laAvful or criminal 
act; that both our country and our States provide for the appre- 
hension and the trial by a jury of persons Avho commit such acts to 
ascertain Avhether such person has been guilty of a criminal act and 
to punish him if he is found guilty, and that organized civil society 
has constituted a police force, large or small, as the circumstances 
may Avarrant, for the apprehension and prcA^ention of any criminal 
act, and that it is hardly fair to put it as has been stated by the 
opponents of our injunction bill, Avhieli your committee reported 
faA^orably. But the essence of the opposition and the purpose of the 
opposition, is clearly manifest. It is to av^oid the jury trial." 

Mr. Roosevelt has often expressed his contempt for "popular 
clamor," which is the name by which he calls public sentiment. 
The only instance on record in which he ever confessed that he 
could possibly paake a mistake wa? ope ip wjiich be "vv^e9.kjy 



188 DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZE ORGANIZED LABOR. 

yielded to the popular voice of New York." An account of the 
affair is found in Will M. Clemens' work, "Roosevelt, the Ameri- 
can," at page 37: 

Soon after the opening of the session (of the New York Legisla- 
ture) in 1883, Mr. Roosevelt introduced a bill requiring the New 
York elevated railroad companies to reduce their fares from ten to 
five cents. Roosevelt A^oted for this bill; but soon afterwards on 
reconsideration defeated it, and, according to Mr. Clemens' account 
(pp. 38 and 39), said in his speech: 

" 'I have to say with shame that when I voted for this bill I did 
not act as I think I ought to have acted and as I have generally 
acted on the floor of this House. For the only time I voted here 
contrary to what I think to be honestly right I did at that time. I 
have to confess that I iveakly yielded partly to a vindictive feeling 
to the infernal thieves who have that railroad in charge, and partly 
to the popular voice of Neio York." 

But while Mr. Roosevelt confesses with shame that he once, 
though only once, yielded to the popular voice and opposed the 
New York railroad ring, he has never confessed that he had any 
sympathy with the aspirations of organized labor. The working- 
men have discovered this and have resented in words on several 
occasions. 

In 1903, the Central Labor Union of Washington, D. C, passed 
a resolution in relation to the case of W. A. Miller, who had been 
expelled from the Bookbinders' Union and removed from the 
Government Printing Office, but had been reinstated in the office 
by the President in contempt of the adverse petitions of organized 
labor, in which .resolution the Central Labor Union said: 

"Whereas, the President of the United States has seen fit to rein- 
state W. A. Miller, and has also committed himself to the policy of 
the open shop, the order of the President cannot be regarded in any 
but an unfriendly light." (Leupp's Roosevelt, p. 239.) 

Commenting on this case, Mr. Roosevelt said: "Of course, I w?ll 
not for one moment submit to dictation by the labor unions" . . . 
"If these labor union men strike, not one of them will do another 
stroke of Government Avork while I am President." (Leupp's 
Roosevelt, p. 24L) 

After quoting these words, Mr. Leupp adds: "The same spirit 
was shown in the case of the Arizona Mining strike riots in 1903, 
when the Governor notified the President of the inability of the civil 
authorities to control the mob. Within thirty minutes of the receipt 
of this telegram a detachment of United States troops was on its 
way to the scene of disorder." (Leupp's Roosevelt, p. 241.) 

The position of the Democratic party has been the reverse of 
Mr. Roosevelt's, as will be seen by reference to our chapter on the 
Democracy and labor. 



ROOSEVELT A FREE-TRADER. 189 



ROOSEVELT A FREE-TRADER, A TARIFF REFORMER 
AND A STAND-PATTER— WAS A FREE-TRADER 
FROM 1881 TO 1885— WAS A TARIFF REFORMER 
IN 1904— IS A STAND-PATTER IN 1906— MAY 
LEAD "A MOVEMENT FOR TARIFF REVISION" IN 
1908. 

The position of President Roosevelt on the tariff question is one 
of prime importance at this juncture. What that position has 
been; what it is, and what it will be hereafter — are matters which 
concern everybody. 

Theoretically, at least, Mr. Roosevelt has been a free-trader, 
and there is no evidence that he has undergone any change in 
principle. But, in deference to the doctrine of expediency, the 
doctrine that the end justifies the means, the doctrine that party 
fealty is superior to political principles, the President has submit- 
ted to the dictation of the older leaders of his party, and is at this 
time upholding the stalwart protectionists. He has accepted for 
this campaign, only, the "stand-pat" position. His friends give it, 
however, that he is not sincere; and that, in 1908, he will be along- 
side of Governor Cummins and Mr. Foss advocating tariff re- 
vision. 

No better analysis of the President's views on this subject can 
be found than that which has been given by Mr. Leupp, the pres- 
ent Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who is known to be one of the 
closest personal and political friends of the President. In 1904, 
Mr. Leupp wrote a book entitled "The Man Roosevelt," in which 
at p. 257 he says: 

"In or about tlie year 1881^ Mr. Roosevelt became a member of 
the Free Trade Club in New York. He found there congenial associa- 
tions, the club consisting largely of educated young men like himself, 
full of public spirit and ambition for a share in the world's activities. 
He remained a member tlirough his entire legislative career." 

"But in 1885, after he had left the legislature, Mr. Roosevelt with- 
drew from the Free Trade Club, saying that he was 'a Republican 
first and free-trader afterwards,' (Leupp's Roosevelt, p. 259), though 
in fact he had been a free-trader first." * * * 

Mr. Leupp adds: 

"He still remains, however; a tariff reformer within Republican lines 
* * * I do not believe that he would condemn as a heresy the 
honest belief of a Republican that the party would be better without 
the protection clause in its creed. I do not think he would resent a 
Republican proposal to supplant a prohibitory tariff with a tariff for 
revenue in which the protective element shall he incidental only." 
(Leupp's Roosevelt, p. 259.) 

Finally, Mr. Leupp summarizes his review of Roosevelt's posi- 
tion on the tariff in the following question: 

"Is he not committed to a non-political, conservative and well-con- 
sidered undertaking, in which no special interests shall be favored 
at the expense of the rest, and none persecuted because they wear an 
obnoxious title, but in which the whole system shall be treated as if 
the schedules were made for the people, not the people for the 



190 ROOSEVELT A FREE-TRADER. 



schedules ?" And again : "Does it seem unreasonable to assunie that 
when the disturbance of the elections of 1904 has subsided, we shall 
see him leading a movement for tariff revision?" (Leupp's Roosevelt, 
p. 263.) 

Mr. Roosevelt placed the stamp of his unqualified approval on 
these utterances by appointing their author to an office of great 
dignity and profit. He has never repudiated them; and whoever 
proclaims himself a follower of Roosevelt proclaims himself a 
free-trader in principle, a tariff revisionist in the past and for the 
future, and a stand-patter at present for what is in it. 

The President has probably read what the Hon. John Sherman 
said on the subject — Free Trade: 

Every advance toward the free exchange of commodities is an 
advance in civilization; every obstruction to a free exchange is born 
of the same narrow, despotic spirit which planted castles upon the 
Rhine to plunder peaceful commerce; every obstruction to commerce 
is a tax upon consumption; every facility to a free exchange cheapens 
comimodities, increases trade and population, and promotes civilization. 

Mr. Sherman, in 1867, when our customs revenue was nearly 
$177,000,000 and our imports about $379,000,000, said: 

"It is therefore simply absurd to talk about free trade, and to talk 
about a protective tariff is unnecessary, because the wit of man could 
not possibly frame a tariff that would produce $140,000,000 in gold 
without protecting our domestic industries." 

In 1883, Samuel J. Randall, a protection Democrat, but not a 
stand-patter, said: 

"In my judgment the question of free trade will not arise practically 
in this country during our lives, if ever, so long as we have to raise 
revenues by duties on imports; and therefore the discussion of that 
principle is an absolute waste of time. After our public debt is paid 
in full, our expenditures can hardly be much below $200,000,000, and 
if this is levied in a business-like way and in an intelligent manner 
it will afford adequate protection to our industrial interests in the 
United States." 

But the Democratic party is not contending and never has 
contended for free trade. The Democrats demand a revenue- 
only tariff and not an "exclusion" or stand-pat tariff. 

Secretary Shaw, in his last report, stated this: 

"The revenues of the Government from all sources (by warrant) 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, were: 

"From 'customs,' $261,798,856.91, and our total 'receipts' from all 
sources last year were $697,101,269.95." 

He also said that our "outstanding principal of the public debt, 
June 30, 1905, was $2,274,615,063.84" and that our "expenditures" 
during the fiscal year were "$720,105,498.55," showing "a deficit 
of $23,204,228.60." 

Senator Allison, in 1870, after stating our obligations to be "an- 
nual interest, $125,000,000; sinking fund required, $25,000,000," 
said: 

"go that good faith recjuires at least $150^000^000 from imports," 



ROO^I^VBLT A FREE-TRADBit. 191 



At the same time lie demanded tariff reduction, amongst other 
things saying: 

"Tlie practical question is, how shall these duties be proportioned 
among the various articles imported so as to take out of the pockets 
of the people the least possible sum over and above the actual amount 
placed in the Treasury, meanwhile discriminating in favor of articles 
of necessary consumption, and against articles of voluntary consump- 
tion, commonly denominated luxuries? 

"Impost duties thus levied, with an annual importation of about 
$450,000,000 in value, will certainly require an average rate of duty 
SUFFICIENT TO GIVE OUR PRODUCERS OF MANUFACTURED 
PRODUCTS GREATLY THE ADVANTAGE OVER THE MANUFAC- 
TURERS OF SIMILAR PRODUCTS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES." 

Surely by the standard of these several high authorities, there 
is no room for the "exclusions," as Governor Cummins calls the 
stand-patters, but there is plenty of room for tariff reform along 
a revenue-only basis. 

The Republicans, in effect, admit the tariff should be reformed. 
But, says Mr. Secretary Shaw, we must refix the tariff after a gen- 
eral election and have a special session called for that purpose. If 
this is not placing party above tariff reform and above and be- 
yond a tax-ridden, tax-cursed, trust-oppressed people, what is it? 
But the Republican party has never been a party of the people. 

When Mr. Roosevelt was a free-trader, and before he had 
decided to be a Republican and a free-trader at once, he said: 

"Political economists have pretty generally agreed that protection 
is vicious in theory and harmful in practice; but if the majority of 
the people in interest wish it, and it affects only themselves, there is 
no earthly reason why they should not be allowed to try the experi- 
ment to their heart's content. The trouble is that it rarely does 
affect only themselves; and in 1828 the evil was" peculiarly aggravated 
on account of the unequal way in which the proposed law would affect 
difl'erent sections. It purported to benefit the rest of the country, 
but it undoubtedly worked real injury to the planter States and there 
is small ground for wonder that the irritation over it should have 
been intense." (Roosevelt's "Life of Benton," p. 67.) 

"In 1828, the tariff, whether it benefited the country as a whole 
or not, unquestionably harmed the South; and in a Federal Union it 
is most unwise to pass laws which shall benefit one part of the 
country to the hurt of another part, when the latter receives no com- 
/)ensation. The truculent and unyielding attitude of the extreme 
protectionists was irritating in the extreme; for cooler men than the 
South Carolinians might well have been exasperated at such an utter- 
ance as that of Henry Clay, when he stated that for the sake of 
the American system — ^by which title he was fond of styling a 
doctrine already ancient in medieval times — he would 'defy the South, 
the President, and the devil.'" (Roosevelt's "Life of Benton," 
p. 90.) 

"Clay's assertions as to what the tariff had done for the West were 
ill-founded, as Benton showed in a good speech, wherein he described 
picturesquely enough the industries and general condition of the 
country, and asserted with truth that its revived prosperity was due 
to its own resources, entirely independent of Federal aid or legisla- 
tion. He said : 'I do not think we are indebted to the high tariff for 
our fertile lands and our navigable rivers; and I am certain we are 
indebted to these blessings for the prosperity we enjoy.' " (Roosevelt's 
"Life of Benton," p. 91.) 



192 ROOSEVELT A FREE-TRADER. 

Mr. Roosevelt has written nothing distinctly and unequivocally 
stating his position since he withdrew from the Free Trade Club; 
but it has been given out at Oyster Bay this summer that he is 
fully in accord with the views of Speaker Cannon and Mr. Sher- 
man, which have been summarized in the language of gamblers 
and beggars: "Stand pat and pass the hat." 

SECRETARY SHAW, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE 
POWERS OF CONGRESS. 

In 1904 when the Democrats in Congress were demanding that 
the departmental scandals, then so well known and widely preva- 
lent, be investigated, Mr. Secretary Shaw used the following 
language in one of his speeches: 

"IT WOULD-BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CONGRESS TO 
INVESTIGATE A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT." 

In other words, any department of the Government may be run 
as the head of that department may please. The greatest body, 
the most powerful branch of the Government — Congress — has no 
right to guard the people's interests in the different branches of 
the executive arm of the republic. Maladministration may be 
widespread, corruption oozing from every pore, scandal may be 
rife, officers of the Government in the pay of the trusts, in a 
word, anything may be done in a department, and yet Congress 
is powerless to intervene. The question naturally arises, who 
has the power? Perhaps Mr. Shaw can answer this, or, forsooth, 
perchance the Secretary of the Treasury thinks that he is all 
powerful and responsible to no one. 



THE MOTIVE BEHIXD THE '-BIO STICK." 193 



THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE "BIG STICK." 

Expressions of opinion by the President relative to corporations, 
conquest, overlordship of weaker nations and ship subsidy: 

ROOSEVELT FAVORS BIG CORPORATIONS IN PORTO RICO 

AND THE PHILIPPINES— WOULD MAKE LAWS 

"ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THEM." 

In his annual message of December 5, 1905, Mr. Roosevelt said: 

''The fundamental and vital help must be given through the develop- 
ment of the industries of the islands, and a most efficient means to 
this end is to encourage big American corporations to start industries 
in them and this means to make it advantageous for them to do so. 
To limit the ownership of mining claims as has been done in the 
Philippines is absurd. In both the Philippines and Porto Rico the 
limit of holdings of hind should be largely raised." 

Here we have the real motive behind the "big stick" policy. 
Back of all Mr. Roosevelt's glorification of expansion stand the 
trusts, the speculators and gamblers, the plunderbund. In the 
light of this announcement one may easily guess the President's 
meaning when he appeals to the spirit conquest. 

ROOSEVELT ON ''THE SHADOW OF OUR DESTINY" AND 
"EASY INTERNATIONAL MORALITY." 

"The shadow of our destiny has already reached the shores of Asia. 
The might of our people looms large against tlie world horizon and 
it will loom ever larger as the years go by." (From President 
Roosevelt's Memorial Address at Arlington, 1002.) 

"The general feeling in the West upon this last subject afterwards 
crystallized into vdiat became known as the 'Manifest Destiny' idea, 
which, reduced to its simplest terms, was : that it was our manifest 
destiny to swallow up the lands of all adjoining nations who were 
too weak to withstand us ; a theory that forthwith obtained immense 
popularity among all statesmen of easy international morality." 
(Roosevelt's "Life of Benton," p. 40.) ' 

ROOSEVELT WANTS BIG MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCE, 
TO INCLUDE SUBSIDIZED MERCHANT MARINE. 

In his annual message of December 5, 1905, President Roose- 
velt said: 

"We cannot consider the question of our foreign policy without at 
the same time treating of the Army and the Xavy. We now have a 
very small army — indeed, one well-nigh infinitesimal when compared 
with the army of any other large nation." 

"'Our Xavy must, relatively to the navies of other nations, always 
be of greater size than our army. We have most wisely continued 
for a number of years to build up our Xavy." 

"Fast scouts are needed. The main strength of the Xaw, however, 
lies and can only lie in the great battle ships, the hea^dly armored, 
heavily gunned vessels which decide the mastery of the seas. Heavy 
armed cruisers also play a most useful part, and unarmed cruisers, 
if swift enough, are very useful as scouts." 



194 THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE "BIG STICK:' 

"To the spread of our trade in peace and the defense of our flag in 
war a great and prosperous merchant marine is indispensable. We 
should have ships of our own and seamen of our own to convey our 
goods to neutral markets, and in case of need to reenforce our battle 
line. It cannot but be a source of regret and uneasiness to us that 
the lines of communication with our sister Republics of South 
A^ierica should be chiefly under foreign control. It is not a good 
thing that American merchants and manufacturers should have to 
send their goods and letters to South America via Europe if they wish 
security and dispatch. Even on the Pacific, where our ships have 
held their own better than on the Atjantic, our merchant flag is now 
threatened through the liberal aid bestowed by other governments on 
their own steam lines. I ask your earnest consideration of the report 
with which the Merchant Marine Commission has followed its long 
and careful inquiry." (Note. — The report favors a ship subsidy.) 

In his annual message of December 7, 1903, President Roose- 
velt said: 

"Lines of cargo ships are of even more importance than fast mail 
lines : save so far as the latter can be depended upon to furnish swift 
auxiliary cruisers in time of war." 

MONROE DOCTRINE PRAISED AND PERVERTED— WHY 

WE NEED A BIG NAVY— SANTO. DOMINGO AND 

VENEZUELA. 

In his last annual message, December 5, 1905, the President says: 

"One of the most effective instruments of peace is the Monroe 
Doctrine. . . . 

"It is not of the slightest consequence whether we grant the aid 
needed by Santo Domingo as an incident to the wise development of 
the Monroe Doctrine, or because we regard the case of Santo Domingo 
as standing wholly by itself, and to be treated as such, and not on 
general principles or with any reference to the Monroe Doctrine. 
The important point is to give the needed aid, and the case is certainly 
sufficiently peculiar to deserve to be judged purely on its own merits. 
The conditions in Santo Domingo have for a number of years grown 
from bad to worse until a year ago all society was on the verge of 
dissolution. Fortunately, just at this time a ruler sprang up in 
Santo Domingo, who, with his colleagues, saw the dangers threatening 
their country and appealed to the friendship of the only great and 
powerful neighbor who possessed the power, and, as they hoped, also 
the will to help them. . . . The previous rulers of Santo Domingo 
had recklessly incurred debts, and owing to her internal disorders 
she had ceased to be able to provide means of paying the debts. 

"Accordingly the Executive Department of our Government nego- 
tiated a treaty under which we are to try to help the Dominican 
people to straighten out their finances. This treaty is pending before 
the Senate. In the meantime a temporary arrangement has been 
made which will last until the Senate has had time to take action 
upon the treaty. Under this arrangement the Dominican Govern- 
ment has appointed Americans to all the important positions in the 
customs service, and they are seeing to the honest collection of the 
revenues, turning over 45 per cent, to the (Dominican) Government 
for running expenses, and putting the other 55 per cent, into a safe 
depositary for equitable division in case the treaty be ratified, among 
the various creditors, whether European or American." 

In the same message, he craftily strikes at Venezuela in the in- 
terest of the Asphalt Trust, and perverts the Monroe Doctrine, as 
follows: 

"If a republic to the south of us commits a tort against a foreign 
nation such as an outrage against a citizen of that nation, then the 



THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE ''BIG STICK." 195 

Monroe Doctrine does not force us to interfere to prevent punishment 
of the tort, save to see that punishment does not assume the form of 
territorial occupation in any shape. The case is more difficult when 
it refers to a contractual ohligation. Our own government has always 
refused to enforce such contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens 
by an appeal to arms." . . . 

"We must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement 
by which so much as possible of a just obligation shall be paid." . . . 

"There are of course limits to the wrongs which any self-respecting 
nation can endure. It is always possible that wrong actions toward 
this nation, or toivards citizens of this nation, in some state unable 
to secure justice from outsiders, and unwilling to do justice to those 
outsiders who treat it well, may result in our having to take action 
to protect our rights." 

There speaks the natural, unmuzzled Roosevelt, who announced 
in his Cuban letter: 

"If a nation shows how to act with decency in industrial and 
political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, then it 
need fear no interference from the United States. Brutal wrong- 
doing or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties 
of civilized society may finally require intervention by some civilized 
nation, and in the western hemisphere the United States cannot ignore 
this duty; but it remains true that our interests and those of our 
southern neighbors are in reality identical. All that we ask is that 
they shall govern themselves well and be prosperous and orderly." 

(Note — See also articles on Santo Domingo and Venezuela else- 
where in this book.) 

SOME OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S INCONSISTENCIES. 
MATTERS AFFECTING THE PRESIDENT. 

He cites the achievements of Jefferson, Monroe and Polk with 
approval in his letter of acceptance, but denounces those Presi- 
dents, their policy and their supporters in his books. 

The inconsistencies of Mr. Roosevelt are many, but perhaps the 
most glaring of them all are found in his references to Presidents 
Jefferson, Monroe and Polk. 

In his letter accepting the Republican nomination for the Vice- 
Presidency, in 1900, Mr. Roosevelt said: 

"In 1803;, under President Jefferson, the greatest single stride in 
expansion that we ever undertook was taken by the purchase of the 
Louisiana territory. This so-called Louisiana, which included what 
are now the States of Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Montana and a 
large part of Colorado and Utah, was acquired by treaty and purchase 
under President Jefferson. . . . 

"The next great step in expansion was the acquisition of Florida. 
This was partly acquired by conquest and partly by purchase, Andrew 
Jackson being the most prominent figure in the acquisition. It was 
taken under President Monroe. . . . 

"Our next acquisition of territory was that of Texas, secured by 
treaty after it had been wrested from the Mexicans by the Texans 
themselves. Then came the acquisition of California, New Mexico, 
Arizona, Nevada and parts of Colorado and Utah, as the result of the 
Mexican War supplemented five years later by the Gadsden purchase," 



196 THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE ''BIG STICKS 

What Mr. Roosevelt says in these passages is entirely true; 
but in his historical writings he gives no credit to Jefferson, Mon- 
roe or Polk for the acquisitions of territory referred to. On the 
contrary, he directly denies to Jefferson any credit for the acquisi- 
tion of Louisiana, and denounces Monroe and Polk in unmeasured 
terms, thus inferentially condemning them for the part they 
played in our national history, not only in the acquisition of 
Florida, Texas and the Mexican cession, hut in all things. 

Of Jefferson he says: 

"The men who settled and peopled the Western wilderness were the 
men who won Louisiana, for it was surrendered by France merely 
because it was impossible to hold it against the American advance. 
Jefferson through his agents at Paris, asked only for New Orleans, 
but Napoleon thrust upon him the great West." (Preface to Roose- 
velt's "Winning of the West," Part VI, dated May, 1896.) 

Of Monroe he says: 

"Monroe was an honorable man, with a very unoriginal mind, and 
he simply reflected the wild, foolish views held by his fellows of the 
Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican school."' (Roosevelt's "Life of 
G. Morris," pp. 301 and 302.) 

"I think he (James Monroe) was as much a failure as his prede- 
cessors, and a rasher criticism could not be passed upon him." 
(Roosevelt's "Naval War of 1812," p. 456.) 

Of Polk he says: 

"Polk was backed by rabid Southern fire-eaters and slavery exten- 
sionists, ... by the almost solid foreign vote, still unfit for the 
duties of American citizenship, by the vicious and criminal classes in 
all the great cities of the North and in New Orleans, by the corrupt 
politicians, . . . and lastly, he was also backed, indirectly but 
most powerfully, by the political abolitionists." (Roosevelt's "Life 
of Benton," p. 291). "The Abolitionists joined hands with Northern 
roughs and Southern slavocrats to elect the man who was, excepting 
Tyler, the very smallest of the line of small Presidents who came 
between Jackson and Lincoln." (Ibid., p. 292.) 

Not only did he thus denounce Polk and the men who elected 
him in bringing under our flag the vast territory which now em- 
braces California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada, and 
parts of Utah and Colorado, but he also denounces Winfleld Scott, 
Zachary Taylor and Lewis Cass, who contributed to the success of 
Polk's administration. According to Roosevelt, the historian, 

"Scott and Taylor were not great generals." (Roosevelt's "Life of 
Benton," p. 268.) "Lewis Cass, a Northern pro-slavery politician of 
moderate ability." (The same, p. 329.) "Winfield Scott a wholly 
absurd and flatulent personage." (The same, p. 344.) 

Not until he found it necessary to win Democratic support for 
his policy of imperialism did he ever say a word in praise of any 
Democratic statesman or any Democratic achievement. Speaking 
of the founders of the Democratic party in his books, he says that 
they were "inferior in intelligence"; that their "whole influence 
was distinctly evil"; that their leaders were "doctrinaire politi- 



THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE ''BIO STICK:' 197 

cians"; that Jefferson was "constitutionally unable to put a proper 
value on truth"; that General Wilkinson was "a double traitor, 
bribe-taker and corrupt servant of a foreign government"; that 
Madison was "a ridiculously incompetent leader"; that Monroe 
was "a failure"; and that Benton was "afflicted with a rage for the 
cheap pseudo-classism of Jefferson." 

These libellous and scandalous sayings reflect the true spirit of 
Theodore Roosevelt. What he now says is said only to win ap- 
proval for the "big stick" policy, by insinuating that such a policy 
was really inaugurated by Jefferson, and Monroe, and not by "the 
big American corporations" which he is serving, and which he 
seeks to enthrone in the Philippines, Porto Rico, Cuba and Santo 
Domingo. Even when he tells the truth, he does so in order to 
disguise an evil purpose, or to justify by precedent a wicked 
policy. Surely, no one who values sincerity will be influenced by 
the utterances of Mr. Roosevelt. 

MATTERS AFFECTING THE PRESIDENT. 

The President favors certain railroads and accepts gifts from 
them — Violated the interstate commerce law — Demands and re- 
ceives money for junketing expenses — Authorizes deposits of pub- 
lic money in favored banks without interest — Diverts funds ap- 
propriated for one purpose to another — Allows public money to 
pay for a literary bureau to boom his policy. 

Mr. Roosevelt has shown greater regard for the interests of 
corporations and less regard for the law than any other Executive 
the country has ever had. 

In 1901 and 1903, he joined with his partisans in Congress in a 
series of measures in the interest of the Pennsylvania and Balti- 
more and Ohio railroads, by means of which those two corpora- 
tions were given $3,000,000, in money, besides several million dol- 
lars' worth of lands in the City of Washington, and franchises 
worth at least $50,000,000. Half of the money thus given came 
out of the Treasury of the United States and half out of the reve- 
nues of the District of Columbia; but neither the United States 
nor the District of Columbia obtained in return for it any stock 
or other pecuniary interest in the railroads. Immediately after 
the conclusion of this deal, which was opposed by the Democrats, 
the President, as the guest of the Pennsylvania Railroad, the chief 
beneficiary of the steal, made a tour of the country, which cost 
$50,000, all the bills being paid by that corporation. 

This matter caused a great deal of discussion in the summer of 
1903, and one of the leading newspapers of the country said: 

"The discussion about who defrayed the expenses of the trip of the 
President to the Pacific coast has gone on apace, but with great 
moderation. A friend representing the President takes up the subject 
in defense in the New York Tribune, and it is an admission that the 
President has been traveling about the country, with a large party of 
friends, assistants and clerks, without paying railrjoad fares and with- 
out paying for the costly entertainment provided by the companies in 
the way of food and refreshment. The defense made by the President 
is 'that he could hardly be expected to defray the cost of the special 
train out of his own private purse.' The railroad corporations did 
tbat and it arnouiited. to a considerable sum. The only defense 



198 THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE ''BIG STICK:' 

attempted is that the President's predecessors established the custom 
of 'dead-heading/ or at least some of them did. The New York Sun 
in discussing the question points forcibly to the Federal law on the 
subject, the latest of which was the President's own corporation and 
'publicity' act, signed by him in February last, and which declares: 

" 'Section 3 — That whenever the interstate commerce commission 
shall have reasonable ground for belief that any common carrier is 
engaged in the carriage of passengers or freight traffic between given 
points at less than the published rates on file, or is committing any 
discriminations forbidden by law, a petition may be presented alleging 
such facts to the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in equity 
having jurisdiction.' 

"The same law makes it the duty of the United States district 
attorneys to prosecute violators of the statute. Some persons are 
exempted from the penalties of the law, but Federal officials are not. 
The President is sworn to enforce the law, but in reality he became a 
party to its violation. It is advised to prevent such scandals that 
Congress should appropriate money ample to defray the expenses of 
these electioneering tours, for in reality that is what they amounted 
to." 

There was so much criticism of this affair that the President 
finally appealed to Congress for an appropriation out of the Treas- 
ury to meet his traveling expenses, on the ground that he was un- 
able to pay them himself, and disliked to travel at the expense of 
the railroads. Congress, in 1906, upon the President's suggestion, 
and against the protests of the Democratic members of both 
houses, passed a bill granting him $25,000 a year to pay the trav- 
eling expenses of himself and his invited guests. The arguments 
and votes on this bill will be found in the Congressional Reqord 
for June 20,. 21 and 22, 1906. The vote in the House stood, for the 
bill 176, all Republicans (except Bourke Cockran); against the 
bill, 66, all Democrats. (Record, p. 9059.) The vote in the 
Senate stood, for the bill, 42, all Republicans; against it, 20, all 
Democrats (except McCumber). (Record, p. 9238.) 

This bill was clearly in violation of that section of the Constitu- 
tion which provides that "the President shall at stated times re- 
ceive for his services a compensation, which," whatever it may 
be, "shall neither de increased nor diminished during the period 
for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not receive 
within that period any other emolumenV- — any gain, perquisite, 
or advantage arising from, incidental to, or connected with the 
office of President — ''from the United States, or any of them:' 

THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT RELATING TO NATIONAL 
BANKS AND BANK DEPOSITS. . 

i 
The Secretary of the Treasury, with the President's approval, has 
again and again deposited large sums of public money amounting 
to tens of millions of dollars in favored banks without interest, 
not for safekeeping merely, but confessedly to benefit the banks; 
to enable them to buy gold abroad, or to lend money to stock 
gamblers in Wall Street; thus making the people's treasury an 
accessory in the wicked game of fleecing the people. This is a 
violation of the spirit of the law; though it is not expressly pro- 
hibited because when the banking law was passed it was incon- 
ceivable that such a thing could ever be done under its provisions. 
The President cannot escape responsibility for this abuse. He 



THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE ''BIG STICK r 199 

has repeatedly endorsed it, and has asked for power that would 
allow him to lend all the public money to the hanks. In his an- 
nual message of December 7, 1903, the President said: 

"The same liberty should be granted to the Secretary of the 
Treasury to deposit customs receipts as is granted him in the deposit 
of receipts from other sources." 

This would enable the banks to handle the entire income of 
the country without interest. In his annual message of December 
5, 1905, he admits that he has adopted measures not authorized by 
Congress in this respect, but "which should be provided by Con- 
gressional action." He says: 

"At present the Treasury Department is at irregularly recurring 
intervals obliged, in the interest of the business world — that is, in 
the interests of the American public — to try to avert financial crises 
by providing a remedy, which should be provided by Congressional 
action." 

This policy of pampering favorite banks has caused so much 
adverse criticism that Secretary Shaw has recently announced 
that he will lend no more public money to any bank for specula- 
tive purposes; but he does not define speculative purposes, and 
keeps right on lending money to the banks. His announcement is 
a confession that he has been furnishing Wall Street with the 
means of rigging the market for years; and the President's utter- 
ances prove that it has been done with his sanction. 

Again, the President, in 1905, used large sums of public money 
without authority of law, express or implied, to pay the expenses 
of a literary bureau located in Washington, which was used to 
influence public opinion through the press in favor of his personal 
policy in Panama. This bureau had nothing to do with the actual 
building of the canal; its only purpose being to laud the President 
and his wonderful works and to reply to criticisms of conditions 
on the Isthmus. 

At its head was a gentleman named Bishop, whose salary of 
$10,000 a year was paid out of the public treasury, in spite of the 
fact that no appropriation had been made for such payments, and 
that the Spooner act did not authorize any such expenditures. 
The matter was brought out by an investigation of Panama affairs 
by the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals, and elicited so 
much unfavorable criticism that the bureau was abolished. But 
the President still retained Mr. Bishop's services by making him 
a sort of secretary for the Canal Commission and paying as large 
a salary as ever. 

The provision of the Constitution that "no money shall be 
drawn from the Treasury but in pursuance of appropriations made 
by law" has had no weight with the President. He has violated 
the Constitution, not only in the Bishop case, but in other cases. 
For instance. Congress appropriated a sum of money to build a 
new house for the accommodation of the Agricultural Depart- 
ment, and fixed the plan, the limit of cost and the location of the 
building. But the President changed the plan and location, and 



200 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 



spent all the money on two buildings, or wings, to be connected 
in the future at two or three times the cost of the work for which 
Congress had made the appropriation. 

By such conduct he proclaims his lack of reference for law 
and his contempt for the legislative authority, and proves himself 
to be a law unto himself. 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 

The principles of the Democratic party defy, and the Demo 
cratic party has always opposed monopoly, whether in its old 
form or the new style, called "trusts." Andrew Jackson hated 
and crushed the bank monopoly, that, by corrupt means, strenu- 
ously sought to control Congress in its efforts to free the people 
from its crushing and demoralizing machinations. 

Jackson approved many bills reducing the tariff, thus avoiding 
the creation of industrial monopolies. Furthermore, his was the 
first and last administration to pay off the public debt. 

Under the happy influences of revenue tariff and Democratic 
administration, there were no trusts controlling commerce in or 
between the States until after the Democratic party went out of 
power in 1860. Nevertheless, the Democrats have at all times 
openly defied monopoly, and in 1856, about the very birth of the 
Republican party, that now stands sponsor for high tariff and 
trusts, the Democratic party, in its platform vroclaimed that one 
of its many high purposes was: 

"To sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty by 
continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the 
benefit of the few at the expense of the many." 

The Democratic party was the first to discover and point out 
the existence and dangerous operations of the new form of 
monopoly, called "trusts," and charged that high tariffs bred, 
sheltered and protected them, and demanded tariff reform, "and 
the prevention of monopoly." 

To this Mr. Carnegie, of armor plate and steel trust fame, 
replied : 

"The public may regard trusts and corporations with serene 
confidence." 

Taking sides with Mr. Carnegie and issue with the Democratic 
party in his memorable candidacy in 1884 for the Presidency, Mr. 
Blaine declared: 

"Trusts are private affairs with which the people have no concern." 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 201 
In 1884, Mr. Blaine, in his letter of acceptance, further declared: 

"The internal commerce of our 38 States is carried on without let 
or hindrance, loithout tax, detention or governmental interference of 
any kind whatever. It spreads freely over an area of three and a half 
million square miles — almost equal in extent to the whole of Europe. 
Its profits are enjoyed today by 56,000,000 of American freemen, and 
from this enjoyment no monopoly is created. 

"According to Alexander liamilton, when he discussed the same 
subject in 1790, 'the internal competition wliich takes place, does away 
with everything like monopoly, and by degrees reduces the prices of 
articles to the minimum of a reasonable profit on the capital 
employed.' 

"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO POINT TO A SINGLE MONOPOLY IN 
THE UNITED STATES THAT HAS BEEN CREATED OR FOS- 
TERED BY THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM WHICH IS UPHELD BY 
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY." 

Trusts are private! Tariffs do not create or foster them!! 
Our commerce is free!!! Thus spoke Mr. Blaine. He was 
defeated, Mr. Cleveland elected and a Democratic House. 

The proposition to reach, by congressional action, trusts and 
combinations engaged in federal commerce was a new and 
extremely difficult kind of legislation, as shown by the following 
statements made in debating the trust bills from which evolved 
the Anti-Trust Act of 1890: 

Senator Piatt, of Connecticut, said: 

"It is very difficult to see that anything can be reached" — under 
the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. (March 24, 1890, Record, 
Vol. 21, p. 568.) 

On April 8, 1890, Senator Hoar said: 

"Senators will remember that this is entering upon a new and un- 
trodden field of legislation. It is undertaking to curb by national au- 
thority an evil which, under the opinions which have prevailed of old 
under all our legislative precedents and policies, has been left to be 
dealt with either by the ordinary laws of trade or to be dealt with 
by the State." * * * 

Senator Hiscock, March 24, 1890, contended that all the bills 
were unconstitutional, but of these, he favored the Reagan bill, 
which "upon its face," said he, "it would afford some relief." 

On March 24, 1890, Mr. Sherman said: 

"The power of Congress is the only one that can bring all the parties 
to combinations before a tribimal and have that tribunal pronounce 
judgment, not in a criminal suit, but in a civil suit." (Vol. 21, Rec- 
ord, 2569.) 

In the Fiftieth Congress just before this (Fifty-first) Senator 
Sherman said it could only be done by the taxing power. 

Senator Sherman at first opposed a criminal section but after 
the Senate had voted the Reagan bill, March 25, 1890, into the 
Sherman bill, he acquiesced. 

March 26, 1890, Mr. Sherman had changed. He said: 

"The proposition made by the Senator from Texas (Mr. Reagan) is 
also in the right direction, and, after careful consideration of that 
proposition, there can be no objection to it so far as any one who is in 



202 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 

favor of the principle of the bill is concerned. It adds a criminal 
clause and defines somewhat the meaning of the words in the original 
bill. So far so good. 

"There are two propositions in it (the bill) of great importance. 
The amendment of the Senator from Texas (Mr. Reagan) which is 
now a distinct and separate amendment." 

March 25, 1890, Mr. Edmunds said: 

"I should not have referred to this matter (failure of Judiciary 
Committee to report Reagan bill) at all if the Senator from Kansas, 
to whom I meant no offense, of course, had not alluded to the fact that 
the substance of this measure, the best arrangement that had been 
proposed, in the first instance, that I know of, the hill of the Senator 
from Texas, was referred to that committee and had not been reported. 
That seemed to imply a reproach upon the committee, a neglect of 
public interests." 

On April 8, 1890, Mr. Edmunds, in speaking of Mr. Reagan and 
the Reagan bill, said: 

"Now, I come to the amendment of my friend from Texas (Mr. 
Reagan ).***! know he is perfectly earnest about this busi- 
ness and I think he introduced the best amd the first bill upon the 
subject." 

Senator Reagan, January 25, 1889, said: 

"If we have tne power to deal with this subject, it seems to me it 
must be under the Commerce Clause." 

Mr. Turpie: 

"There is a bill introduced by the Senator from Texas ( Mr. Reagan ) . 
It is a most carefully and elaborately prepared bill as far as the 
penal section is concerned." 

Senator Hawley, March 26, 1890 — "Nobody from the Committee on 
Finance has advocated this (Sherman) bill (S. 1) except the distin- 
guished reporter (Mr. Sherman) and perhaps its author. I do not 
remember that any one else has spoken for it from that committee." 

His motion to refer it to the Judiciary Committee was defeated: 
Yeas 24, nays, 29. 

DEMOCRATS FIRST. 

The Democrats were first to discover and point out and 
denounce "trusts." They were first to report on trusts. They 
were first to introduce anti-trust bills in Congress. They were 
first to base these bills on the commerce clause where the law 
now rests. They were first to base these bills on that clause with 
civil and criminal provisions. 

Judge Key (Democrat) tried and decided the first case under 
the Anti-trust Act of 1890. 

Judge Harmon (Democrat) was the first Attorney-General to 
win a case in the Federal Supreme Court under this law — Trans- 
Missouri suit. He filed the Joint Traffic and Pipe cases; they 
were won. These are the three leading cases under the anti-trust 
law and Judge Peckham (Democrat), Associate Justice, wrote the 
opinion of the court in these three cases. 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 203 



DEMOCRATS FIRST TO INTRODUCE ANTI-TRUST BILLS. 

The Democrats also introduced the first bill in Congress 
(Fiftieth) to regulate what is known as Trusts. This fact is 
shown by Senate Doc, 147, Fifty-second Congress, second session, 
1903, prepared by direction of the Attorney-General, who was at 
that time Mr. P. C. Knox. It contains and is entitled "Bills and 
Debates in Congress Relating to Trusts, Fiftieth Congress to 
Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, inclusive. Washington, 
Government Printing Office, 1903." We must, therefore, presume 
that Mr. Knox caused to be printed in this document all trust bills 
introduced in Congress down to and including those in the first 
session of the Fifty-seventh Congress — 1903. The Librarian 
(Congressional) investigated and finds none were introduced in 
the Forty-ninth Congress. 

List of bills introduced in the Congresses named according -to 
tiie official date of introduction, as shown by official file numbers. 
House bills are marked ''H. R." and Senate bills "S." 

1888— (Fiftieth Congress). 

H. R. 6,113 Stone (Ky.) D.Jan. 30, 1 

H. R. 6,117 Raynei- D. Jan. 30, 2 

H. R. 8,036 Breckenridge D. Mareli 5, 3 

H. R. 8,054 Thomas R. March 5, 4 

H. R. 9,449 McDonald D. April 16, 5 

S. 2,906 a Teller (I. R.) May 10, 6 

H. R. 10,049 Springer D. May 21, 7 

H. R. 10,928 Springer D. July 23, 8 

S. 3,440 Reagan D. Aug. 14, 9 

S. 3,445 b Sherman R. Aug. 14, 10 

H. R. 11,213 Anderson D. Aug. 20, 11 

S. 3,476 Reagan D. Aug. 22, 12 

H. R. 11,279 Anderson D. Aug. 27, 13 

H. R. 11,339 Newton D. Sept. 3, 14 

H. R. 11,343 Anderson D. Sept. 3, 15 

S. 3,510 Cullom R. Sept. 4,16 

H. R. 11,395 Henderson (N. C.) D. Sept. 10, 17 

H. R. 11,401 Culberson D. Sept. 10, 18 

H. R. 11,534 Abbott D. Oct. 1, 19 

aNow a Democrat. 

bintroduced after the Democrats had filed one of their reports on trusts, 
July 30, 1888, H. R. 3121, Fiftieth Congress. 

1889 — (Fifty-first Congress). 

S. 1 Sherman R. Dec. 4, 1 

S. 6 George D. Dec. 4, 2 

S. 62 Reagan D. Dec. 4, 3 

H. R. 91 McRae D. Dec. 18, 4 

H. R. 179 Stewart (Ga.) D.Dec. 18, 5 

H. R. 202 Fithian D. Dec. 18. 6 

H. R. 270 Henderson (la.) R. Dec. 18, 7 

H. R. 286 Conger R. Dec. 18, 8 

H. R. 313 Lacey R. Dec. 18, 9 

H. R. 402 Breckenridge D. Dec. 18, 10 

H. R. 509 Anderson D. Dec. 18, 11 

H. R. 811 Bnloe D. Dec. 18, 12 

H. R. 826 Richardson D. Dec. 18, 13 

H. R. 830 Pierce D. Dec. 18, 14 

H. R. 846 Stewart (Tex.) D. Lee. 18, 15 

H. R. 3,294 Breckenridge D. Dec. 20, 16 

H. R. 3,353 Letter D. Dec. 20, 17 

1890 — (Fifty-first Congress). 

H. R. 3,819 Lane D. Jan. 6. 18 

H. R. 3,844 Perkins R. Jan. 6. 19 

H. R. 3,925 Abbott D. Jan. 6, 20 

H. R. 3,980 Culberson D. April 3, 21 

(Senate Document 147, Fifty-second Congress, Second Session). 

(Bills and debates in Congress relating to trusts. Fiftieth Congress to 
Fifty-seventh Congress, first see,sion inclusive. Prepared by direction of 
the Attorney- General, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1905). 



204 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 

This document, in part, shows: That the first trust bill was 
introduced by Mr. W. J. Stone (Democrat), of Kentucky, January 
30, 1888; that the second was by Mr. Rayner (Democrat), of 
Maryland, on the same day. It was based on the commerce 
clause. The third was by Mr. Breckenridge (Democrat), of 
Kentucky, on March 5, while of the fourteen House bills (Fiftieth 
Congress) only one— the fourth— was introduced by a Republican 
(Mr. Thomas). 

The Sherman bill was tenth of the nineteen bills introduced in 
that Fiftieth Congress, and the third Senate bill Fiftieth Con- 
gress, S. 3445, while Mr. Reagan's was second, S. 3440. Both were 
introduced August 14, 1888. 

Mr. Sherman protested against referring the Reagan bill to 
the Judiciary Committee instead of the Finance Committee, of 
which he was chairman. The Reagan bill contained a definition 
of a trust and a cy^iminal section with heavy penalty, and was 
based on the commerce clause. Hence it was sent to the law or 
Judiciary Committee. It was the first bill in the Senate contain- 
ing a criminal section based on the commerce clause. 

The earlier House bills by Stone, Rayner and Breckenridge also 
contained criminal and civil sections. 

The Rayner bill of January 30, 1888, particularly well framed, 
based on the commerce clause, where the anti-trust act of 1890 
was finally based as a result of Democratic efforts — mainly of 
Reagan and George and Vest as the debates in the Record show. 

In objecting, August 14, 1888, to the Reagan bill being sent to 
the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sherman said: 

SHERMAN'S PLAN—TAXING POWER ONLY POWER TO 
REGULATE TRUSTS. 

"I wish to say that the Committee on Finance has already been 
charged with the consideration of this subject. I have myself given 
some attention to it, to see how far it is within the constitutional 
power of Congress to so limit trusts and combinations in restraint 
of trade. IT IS VERY CLEAR THERE IS NO SUCH POWER 
UNLESS IT IS DERIVED FROM THE POWER OF LEVYING 
TAXES, THAT IT IS A POWER WHICH MUST BE EXERCISED 
BY EACH STATE FOR ITSELF. WHETHER SUCH LEGISLA- 
TION CAN BE INGRAFTED IN OUR PECULIAR SYSTEM OF 
GOVERNMENT BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY THERE IS 
SOME DOUBT. IF IT CAN BE DONE AT ALL, IT MUST BE 
DONE UPON A TARIFF BILL OR UPON A REVENUE BILL. I 
DO NOT SEE IN WHAT OTHER WAY IT CAN BE DONE. 
(Record, Vol. 19, Part 8, page 7512.) 

Bear in mind the (Sherman) anti-trust law was based on the 
"commerce clause" of the constitution and not on the "taxing 
power." 

FIRST RESOLUTION IN THE HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE 

TRUSTS— HOUSE DEMOCRATIC— REPORT MADE. 

FIFTIETH CONGRESS. 

The Democrats were the first (January 25, 1888) to order an 
investigation of trusts and their operations and report a remedy. 
They did investigate and did report, and this report was referred 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS'. 205 



to by Senator Sherman and others as authority in discussing the 
subject in the Senate (Fifty-first Congress). The committee 
began work March 8, 1888, and filed a report July 22, 1888, and a 
final report March 2, 1889, Fiftieth Congress. 

HOUSE RESOLUTIONS— FIFTIETH CONGRESS. 

The Committee on Manufactures was directed to investigate 
trusts, their operations, extent, names and number, methods, etc., 
"and report the same to the House with such recommendations 
as the said committee may agree upon." 

This Democratic committee reported that it had investigated 
trusts, particularly the Standard Oil Trust, Whiskey Trust, 
Cotton Bagging Trust and Sugar Trust and submitted over 1,200 
pages of testimony on these trusts and stated that many other 
trusts were in existence and were rapidly forming, affecting "a 
large portion of the important manufacturing and industrial 
interests of the country." "They do not report any lists of these 
combinations, for the reason that new ones are constantly form- 
ing, and that old ones are constantly extending their relations 
so as to cover new branches of business and invade new terri- 
tories." "That owing to present differences of opinion between 
the members of the committee they limit this report to submit- 
ting to the careful consideration and subsequent Congresses the 
facts shown by the testimony taken before the committee," 

A minority report was filed, signed by James Buchanan, a 
Republican. It reads: 

''VIEWS OF THE MINORITY." 

"The undersigned deems the record in tins case incomplete without 
the documents hereto annexed as appendices. 'A' is a very ahle review 
of the authorities bearing upon the LEGALITY of trusts. 'B' is the 
opinion of Judge Barrett, of the Supreme Court of New York, in the 
sugar-refining case, discussing the same question. 'C is the offer 
by the solicitor of the Standard Oil Trust to disprove certain matters 
in testimony relating to such trust. As these matters appear of 
record, uncontradicted, it would seem but fair to put upon record the 
offer to disprove. 'D' and 'E' are submitted as fair specimens of the 
GRUDENESS and limited operation of remedies PROPOSED in the 
measures submitted to the committee^' (Fiftieth Congress, Second 
Session, Report 4165, Part 2.) 

Exhibit "A" was an ultra pro-trust article by Prof. Theo. W. 
Dwight, from which is quoted this: 

"Let us therefore be calm. Trusts, as a rule, are not dangerous. 
They are, however, a sign of the times. The right of association is the 
child of freedom of trade. It is too late to banish it." 

A pro-trust argument. 

Exhibits "D" and "E" were the first (Stone's) and second 
(Rayner's) House bills ever introduced in Congress to control 
trusts. The Stone bill contained a civil and criminal section. 
The Rayner bill contained a criminal section and prohibited all- 
contracts, etc., in restraint of interstate commerce, and was based 
on the commerce clause. The Rayner bill blazed the way rightly 



206 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS'. 

to frame such a law and -j^as similar to the bill that became the 
law, July 2, 1890. It was the pioneer bill in Congress based on 
the commerce clause. Yet the Republican minority ridiculed 
these bills, showing their love for the trusts and their ignorance 
of how to outlaw them, and printed pro-trust articles as part of 
the "views of the minority," while Mr. Buchanan suggested no 
bill and introduced none, 

FIRST RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE TRUSTS IN THE 
SENATE— SENATE REPUBLICAN— NO REPORT MADE. 

On July 10, 1888, Fiftieth Congress, Mr. Sherman introduced a 
resolution to investigate and report on trusts and had it referred 
to the Finance Committee, of which he was chairman. But he 
made no report, and no report was made in the Senate on that 
subject. The Senate was Republican. Mr. Sherman had plenary 
power to act and had the full benefit of the House report, filed 
July 22, and the many House bills already filed. No excuse is 
seen for his failure. The bill he introduced he abandoned. 

SHERMAN RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE TRUSTS— NO 
INVESTIGATION AND NO REPORT. 

Here is Senator Sherman's (Fiftieth Congress) resolution of 
June 10, 1888, to investigate trusts and report a bill to remedy the 
evil "in connection with any bill raising or reducing revenue": 

^'Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be directed to inquire 
into and report, in connection with any bill raising or reducing 
revenue that may be referred to it, such measures as it may deem 
expedient to set aside, control, restrain, or prohibit all arrangements, 
contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or 
corporations, made with a view, or which tend to prevent free and 
full competition in the production, manufacture, or sale of articles 
of domestic growth or production, or of the sale of articles imported 
into the United States, or which, against public policy, are designed to 
tend or foster monopoly or to artificially advance the cost to the 
consumer of necessary articles of human life, with such penalties and 
provisions, and as to corporations, with such forfeitures, as will tend 
to preserve freedom of trade and production, the natural competition 
of increasing production, the lowering of prices by such competition, 
and the full benefit designed by and hitherto conferred by the policy 
of the Government to protect and encourage American industries by 
levying duties on imported goods." 

Mr. Sherman made no report, but on August 14, 1888, he intro- 
duced his first anti-trust bill, S. 3445, Fiftieth Congress, entitled, 
"A BILL TO DECLARE UNLAWFUL TRUSTS AND COMBINA- 
TIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND PRODUCTION." 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled. That all arrange- 
ments, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons 
or corporations made with a view, or which tend, to prevent full and 
free competition in the production, manufacture, or sale of articles of 
domestic growth or production, or of the sale of articles imported 
into the United States, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, 
trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations designed, or 
which tend, to advance the cost to the customer of any such articles, 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 207 



are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful, and void; 
and any such person or corporation injured or damnified by such 
arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, or corporation may sue for 
and recover in any court of the United States of competent jurisdic- 
tion double the amount of damages suffered by such person or cor- 
poration. And any corporation doing business in the United States 
that acts or takes part in any such arrangement, contract, agreement, 
trust, or corporation shall forfeit its corporate franchise; and it shall 
be the duty of the district attorney of the United States of the 
district in which such corporations exist or does business to institute 
the proper proceedings to enforce such forfeiture. 

Mr. Sherman reported a substitute for this bill. The Senate 
considered, amended and debated this substitute and a Republican 
Senate agreed to adjourn, and did adjourn Congress without pass- 
ing it or reporting any other trust bill or making any report on 
the subject of trusts. 

FIFTY-FIRST CONGRESS—REPUBLICAN. 

A Republican Senate repudiated and refused to pass Mr. Sher- 
man's S. 1, introduced in the Fifty-first Congress. Mr. Sherman 
admits, as shown herein, in his book, that none of his bills became 
the lata. 

January 14, 1890, he reported S. 1 with amendments. It was 
ably discussed by Republicans and Democrats. It contained three 
sections. March 18 he reported, as usual, an "Amendment" in 
lieu, containing two sections. By March 25, fourteen sections had 
been added to this substitute, making a bill of sixteen sections. 
It was otherwise amended before and thereafter. 

The Reagan bill was bodily adopted as an amendment to the 
Sherman bill, S. 1, by the following vote: 

VOTE ON REAGAN BILL, MARCH 25, 1890. 

Ayes — 34. 
Allen, Pop. George, Dem. Moody, Rep. Vest, Dem. 

Allison, Rep. Gorman, Dem. Paddok, Rep. Walthorp, Dem. 
Bate, Dem. Gray, Dem. Payne, Dem. Washburn, Rep. 

Berry, Dem. Harris, Dem. Pierce, Rep. Wilson, Rep., 

Blackburn, Dem.Hawley, Rep. Pugh, Dem. of Iowa. 

Cockrell, Dem. Higgins, Dem. Reagan, Dem.. Wilson, Dem., 
Coke, Dem. Engalls, Rep. Spooner, Rep. of Maryland. 

Cullom, Rep. Jones, Dem., Teller, Rep. 
Davis, Rep. of Arkansas. Turpie, Dem. 

Faulkner, Dem. Mandison, Rep. Vance, Dem. 

Nays— 12. 
Aldrich, Rep. Frye, Rep. McPherson, Rep, Plumb, Rep. 

Blair, Rep. Hiscock, Rep. Mitchell, Rep, Sherman, Rep. 

Dawes, Rep. Hoar, Rep. Morrell, Rep. Stewart, Rep. 

The Reagan bill defined a trust, contained a criminal section, 
another, making all contracts, etc., in restraint of interstate and 
foreign commerce unlawful, etc. 

Three or four motions were made and defeated to refer the 
hill, S. 1, with amendments to the Judiciary Committee. They 
were made by Democrats and Republicans, the best lawyers in 
the Senate. Finally on March 27, 1890, the bill and amendments 
were referred to the Judiciary Committee, on motion of Mr. 



208 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 

Walthall, with instructions to report a hill within twenty days. 
By a vote of 31 to 28, the bill and amendments were referred to 
that committee, Mr. Sherman voting "no." 

The Judiciary Committee was composed of Senators Edmunds, 
Evarts, Hoar, Ingails and Wilson, of Iowa, Republicans, and Sena- 
tors Vest, Pugh, George and Coke, Democrats. Their unanimous 
report was filed April 2. This committee reported a new bill, 
striking out every word of the Sherman bill, including its title, 
leaving its enacting clause and number "S. 1," which the new bill 
inherited, of course. The bill passed (this Judiciary Committee 
bill) the Senate April 8 and finally June 18 and the House 'finally 
June 20, 1890, without a dissenting vote and became the law. So 
none of Mr. Sherman's anti-trust bills in the Fiftieth or Fifty-first 
Congresses became the law. 

Yet we find in and out of Congress the Republicans claim that 
"John Sherman's anti-trust bill Senate File No. 1" became the 
law. 

The speech of Mr. Secretary Shaw of March 23, 1904, found in 
the Republican Campaign Book of 1904 at page 192 states this: 

"The very first bill introduced in the Senate of the 51st Congress 
was John Sherman's anti-trust bill Senate File No. 1. It (John 
Sherman's) passed both Houses and received the signature of Benja- 
min Harrison." 

Mr. Sherman in his book, "Recollections of John Sherman,". 
page 173, flatly contradicts Mr. Shaw. Mr. Sherman says: 

"In the previous Congress I had introduced a bill to declare unlaw- 
ful trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and production, but 
no action was take on it. On December 4 I again introduced this bill, 
it being the first Senate bill introduced in that Congress. It was 
referred to the Committee on Finance, and having been reported back 
with amendments I called it up on the 27th of February, etc. . . . 
I subsequently reported a substitute from the Committee on Finance 
for the bill and on March 21 I made a long speech in support of it. 
Various amendments were offered. Subsequently, however, the bill 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions 
to report within twenty days. On April 2 Mr. Edmunds, Chairman 
of that Committee, reported a substitute for the bill, and stated 
tliat, while it did not entirely meet his views, he was willing to 
support it. Mr. Vest, Mr. George and Mr. Coke, members of the 
Committee, made statements to the same effect. It was passed by 
the House and after being twice referred to Committees of Conference 
was finally agreed to, the title having been changed to 'An Act to 
Protect Trade and Commerce against Unlawful Restraint and 
Monopoly,' and was approved by the President, June 26, 1890." 

Mr. Sherman here admits that his trust bills in the Fiftieth 
and Fifty-first Congresses failed to become law and yet with the 
public records before his eyes, with Mr. Sherman's book, pre- 
sumptively, at least, in his library — certainly in the Congressional 
Library nearby — Mr. Shaw persists in making, along v/ith other 
Republicans, the untrue and misleading statement that "John 
Sherman's anti-trust bill, Senate file No. 1, passed both houses 
and received the signature of Benjamin Harrison." 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 209 



Mr, Spooner, February 21, 1901, in opposing after stating he 
believed that the Littlefield Anti-Trust bill was "unconstitu- 
tional," said: 

". . . . There is legislation on the statute books. Our juris- 
diction to deal with this question is derived from that clause of the 
Constitution which gives to Congress the power to regulate commerce 
among the States, with Indian tribes, and with foreign countries. So 
far as the power falls within the interstate-commerce clause, a law 
years ago was drawn which was intended to exhaust the Federal juris- 
diction upon the subject. I was a member of the Senate at the time. 
It was committed to the Judiciary Committee, A DEFECTIVE BILL 
HAVING BEEN INTRODUCED BY MR. SHERMAN. Time was 
taken in that Committee. Great lawyers were upon that committee 
who participated in the report. Senator Edmunds was its chairman. 
The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Hoar), than 
whom I know no greater lawyer, had to do with the drafting of the 
bill. Senator George, of Mississippi, who was a great lawyer, partici- 
pated in that work. That bill was reported to the Senate, and it was 
intended to be so, and it Avas so, drawn as to exhaust the Federal 
jurisdiction upon the subject; and so far as the Supreme Court of the 
United States has had occasion to deal v/ith it, it has so held, in my 
opinion. 

MORGAN ANTI-TRUST LAW. 

Later when the Wilson tariff bill A\as under discussion here, upon 
motion, as I recollect it, of the distinguished Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Morgan), the same provisions of law adapted to foreign com- 
merce were inserted in that bill and became a law, and when the pres- 
ent tarif? law was enacted by an express provision the Morgan 
amendment to the Wilson bill was continued in force and is now the 
law. I have not found any Senator yet who has been able to point out, 
in committee or out of it, aside from enlarging the penalties pre- 
scribed by the present law, any jurisdiction to go beyond it." 

The Senate Judiciary Bill was unanimously reported for passage 
by the House Judiciary Committee, April 25, 1890, Mr. Culberson 
(Democrat) making the report. The next day, April 26th, Mr. 
Heard (Democrat) introduced a resolution to make this bill a 
special order for May 8, and "consider it until passed." 

This resolution was defeated, and, on May 1st, the House con- 
sidered the Senate bill. Mr. Taylor (Republican), Chairman of 
the House Judiciary Committee, yielded the floor to Mr. Culberson 
(Democrat) to explain the bill. He did this so well that Mr. Can- 
non said: 

"I want to thank him for his explanation. After the able presenta- 
tion of it by the gentleman from Texas, there is not much left to say." 

There were grave doubts entertained as to wjiether the bill ap- 
plied to railroads, railroad combinations, the "Big Pour Beef 
Trust," being named as one, and to remove all doubt, make the 
law so plain as to leave nothing for the courts to construe, and 
thereby have a perfect remedy that could be swiftly executed, Mr. 
Bland (Democrat) offered this as an amendment: 

j 
BLAND AMENDMENT. 

"(1). Every contract or agreement entered into for the purpose 
of preventing competition in the sale or purpose of any commodity 
transported from one State or Territory to be sold in another, or so 



210 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 

contracted to he sold, (2) or for the transportation of persons or 
property from one State or Territory into another, shall be deemed 
unlawful within the meaning of this Act ; provided, that the contracts 
herein enumerated shall not be construed to exclude any other con- 
tract or agreement declared unlawful in this Act." 

"The amendment was adopted." (21, Record, 4104, May 1, 1890.) 

Mr. Bland explained his amendment, in part, thus: 

"It ( his amendment ) provides that where the Big Four or any other 
corporation or company are proven to be in a trust as to any com- 
modity, the moment that commodity leaves the State or is to be sold 
in another and is in in transitu it becomes the subject to this law. 
This provision does reach Armour & Co., without leaving the matter 
to the construction of the Supreme Court. It does it in direct terms 
in the law, and I want my friends to join with me to make that 
definite and certain, for there is no trust in this country that today 
is robbing the farmers of the great West and North of more millions 
of their hard earned money than this so-called Big Four Beef Trust 
of Chicago. 

AGAINST RAILROAD COMBINATIONS. 

"This amendment, however, goes a little further than that, and 
provides that where there is a combination or an agreement to com- 
bine between railroad companies or transportation companies for the 
transportation of persons or property from one State into another, 
'a pool,' so to speak, it is declared to be subject to this bill. I want 
at least two things to be known to be covered by this bill, and these 
two are the most important: The transportation monopoly and the 
monopoly of the great cattle industry of this country. This amend- 
ment will cover these two things, but God knows, or no man in this 
country knows what else the bill will cover. 

"I TRUST THE HOUSE WILL ADOPT THE AMENDMENT. THE 
BILL MAY REACH THE CASE WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT, 
BUT I FEAR IT WILL NOT, AND FROM ABUNDANT CAUTION 
I HAVE OFFERED IT." (Record, May 1, 1890.) 

His amendment was then UNANIMOUSLY adopted, and the 
Senate bill, thus amended, passed the House without opposition 
May 1st, 1890. 

CONFERENCE REPORT. 

The Senate amended the Bland amendment by eliminating its 
first provision and substituting for the second, this: 

i 
SENATE AMENDMENT. 

"Every contract or agreement entered into for the purpose of pre- 
venting competition in the transportation of persons or property 
from one State to another or Territory so that the RATES of such 
transportation may be raised above what is just or reasonable shall 
be deemed unlawful within the meaning of this act, and nothing in 
this act shall be deemed or held to impair the power of the several 
States in respect of any of the matter in this act mentioned." 

"Statement accompanying report (June 11) of conferees on the 
disagreeing votes of the two houses on S. 1": 

STATEMENT OF CONFEREES. 

(1) A majority of the Committee of conference on the part of the 
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on Senate Bill 1 
submit the following statement. 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS^. 211 

(2) In the original bill two things were declared illegal, namely: 
Contracts in restraint of interstate trade or commerce, and the 
monopolization of such trade. 

(3) Its only object was the control of TRUSTS SO CALLED, so 
far as such combinations in their relation to interstate trade are 
within reach of Federal legislation. 

(4) The House (Bland) amendment extends the scope of the act 
to ALL agreements entered into for the purpose of preventing com- 
petition either in the purchase or sale of commodities, or in the 
TRANSPORTATION of persons or property within the jurisdiction of 
Congress. 

(5) It declares illegal any agreement for relief from the effects 
of competition in the two industries of TRANSPORTATION and mer- 
chandising, however excessive or destructive such competition may be. 

(6) The amendment reported by the conferees is the Senate 
amendment with the added proviso that the power of the States over 
the subjects embraced in the act shall not be impaired thereby. 

(7) It strikes from the House amendment the clause relating to 
contracts for the purchase of merchandise, and MODIFIES THE 
TRANSPORTATION CLAUSE by making unlawful agreements which 
raise rates above what is just and reasonable. 

This conference report prepared by four able lawyers, conferees, 
shows they construed the original bill thus: 

"Its ONLY object was the control of TRUSTS, SO CALLED . . . 
in their relation to interstate trade." 

"The House AMENDMENT extends the scope of the act to all agree- 
ments entered into for the purpose of preventing competition, either 
in the purchase or sale of commodities, or in the TRANSPORTATION 
of persons or property within the jurisdiction of Congress." 

Here is an unfortunate construction, given by these able con- 
ferees, to the original bill as applying to "ONLY, trusts, so- 
called," industrial trusts, and as not applying to railroads 
engaged in the "transportation of persons or property" between 
the States. These conferees were thus asking Congress to con- 
gressionally construe, and at the same time enact, this bill as 
applying to and covering only industrial trusts, and not as apply- 
ing to or covering TRANSPORTATION as such, of persons and 
property between the States. 

Later on the Bland and Senate amendments were defeated.. 

The four judges of the Supreme Court (White, Shiras, Fields 
and Gray) of the United States, in writing theirdissenting opin- 
ion in the Trans- Missouri case (first railroad case under this 
law) allude to THIS construction as showing that CONGRESS 
did NOT intend the Sherman anti-trust law— the then pending 
bill-TO APPLY TO RAILROADS. 

In each railroad case, under this law, decided by the Supreme 
Court, the opinions of the court have been by a bare majority as 
follows: 

Trans-Missouri 5 to 4 

Joint Traffic 5 to 3 (one judge not sitting) 

Merger Case 5 to 4 

with great doutt raised since the last case as to how two of the 
judges may hereafter construe this law in similar cases. 

The result has been to block practically the execution of this 
law as to railroads, certainly its swift execution. Each case, 
as a rule, is appealed to and decided by the Supreme Court, after 



212 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRU8T8. 

years of delay, and a majority only of the Court and by "con- 
struction" hold the law applies to common carriers. 

Mr. Bland, with great force, said this would be the result and 
hence he protested with Mr. Culberson against the Senate amend- 
ment and urged at every step the adoption of the Bland amend- 
ment. 

To adopt the conference report, above given, was to adopt by 
Congress the construction of the original bill given by conferees. 
By defeating the conference report, was defeating that construc- 
tion and by adopting the Bland amendment the bill as amended, 
beyond all doubt, would apply to industrial trusts and railroads 
engaged in the "transportation of persons and property" between 
the States. 

To adopt the Senate amendment to the Bland amendment, it 
was argued, was to limit the amendment to railroad "rates," 
excluding railroads as railroads transporting persons and prop- 
erty and all contracts pertaining thereto, except those as to 
"RATES." The Commerce Act of 1887, then the law, made rates 
that were unjust or unreasonable unlav/ful. Hence, the Senate 
amendment was unnecessary. 

Thus the several questions were discussed, and particularly in 
the House. 

ACTION ON REPORT JUNE 12, 1890. 

THE HOUSE STANDS BY BLAND AT FIRST—AFTERWARDS 
DEFEATS HIS AMENDMENT. 

The speaker announced at first: 

"That the first matter before the House is the conference report 
which was under consideration yesterday evening. The Clerk will 
read the title of the bill." 

"The Clerk read as follows: 

"The Bill S. 1 to protect trade, etc. The question was taken on the 
adoption of the report; and the speaker announced that he was in 
doubt as to the result." 

"Mr. Stewart. Division. The House divided yeas 25, nays 54. 

"Mr. Stewart — No quorum is present. 

"The Speaker (after counting) — 114 present. Not a quorum. 

"Mr. Kerr — I demand the yeas and nays. 

"I'he Speaker — The clerk reports 116 present — a quorum. 

"The Speaker — The question recurs on the adoption of the con- 
ference report." 

"The question was taken. On a division there were yeas 12, 
nays 115." 

"So the conference report was rejected." — (Record, 21, p. 5981, 
June 12, 1890.) 

Stewart (Rep.) made a motion to instruct the conferees to 
abandon the Bland amendment and ask the Senate to abandon its 
amendment thereto, and called for the previous question. 

Previous question ordered — Yeas, 110, nays, 97; not voting, 120. 
(21, Record, p. 5982.) 

This cut off Mr. Bland from making any amendment or to move 
to instruct the conferees along his line. 

Mr. Bland said: There are two questions embodied in the motion; 
first, to authorize a new conference which of course we all want; 
and next, for instructions, that we do not want. (Rec. 5083.) 

He did not want the second conferees instructed to abandon his 
amendment which made the law plain as applying to beef trusts 
and railroad combinations, 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 213 

Mr. Stewart then called for the yeas and nays on and his motion 
was adopted: Yeas, 106; nays, 98; not voting, 123, "so the 
motion of Mr. Stewart, of Vermont, was agreed to." (June 12, 
1890.) The House conferees were thus instructed to kill the 
Bland amendment and the Senate amendment thereto. And on 
June 20th, the conferees — Senator Vest dissenting — insisting on 
the Bland amendment — reported: 

"That both houses recede from their respective amendments." 
The conference report being submitted, this occurred: 

Mr. Bland — Now, Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of consideration, 
in order to go to the Speaker's table and take up the silver bill. 

Mr. Stewart — On that question I demand the yeas and nays. 

The Speaker — The question is: Will the House 7iow consider the 
conference report ? 

And on that, the gentleman from Vermont demanded the yeas and 
nays. 

The question was taken — ^yeas, 144; nays, 103; not voting, 80. 
So the House determined to consider the conference report, which 
was done. 

Mr. Culberson stated that he signed this conference report be- 
cause the House had instructed him to do so. 

"Individually, I thought, the amendment originally made by the 
House was desirable, but the House having instructed otherwise, I 
agree to this report in accordance with that instruction." 

Mr. Bland — "I regret that the amendment that the House put upon 
the bill was stricken out; and while I fear the bill in its present 
shape is not what its friends expect of it, I shall cheerfully vote for 
it. I raise the question of consideration simply for the purpose of 
going to the Speaker's table and taking up the silver bill. I am not 
opposed to the bill itself." 

On the adoption of that report and the passage of the bill as it 
left the Senate the vote was — yeas, 242; nays, 0; not voting, 85, 
as follows: 



HOUSE VOTE ON PASSAGE OF ANTI-TRUST ACT OF 
I JULY 2, 1890. 







Yeas— 242. 






Abbott 




Cbeadle 


Haugen 




Moore, Tex. 


Adams 




Chip man 


Hayes 




Morey 


Alderson 




Clements 


Haynes 




Morrill 


Allen, Mich. 




Clunie 


Heard 




Morrow 


Anderson, Kan. 


Cobb 


Hemphill 




Morse 


Anderson, Miss. 


Cogswell 


Henderson, 


III 


. Mudd 


Arnold 




Comstrock 


Henderson, 


Iowa Niedringhaus 


Atkinson, W. 


Va. Conger 


Henderson, 


N. 


C. Norton 


Baker 




Cooper, Ind. 


Herbert 




Gates 


Bankbead 




Cothran 


Hermann 




O'Neil, Ind. 


Banks 




Cowles 


Hill 




O'Neil, Mass. 


Barnes 




Crain 


Hitt 




O'Neil, Pa. 


Bartine 




Crips 


Holman 




Osborne 


Beckwith 




Culberson, Tex. 


Kelley 




Owen, Ind. 


Belden 




Culberson, Pa. 


Kennedy 




Owens, Ohio 


Belknap 




Cummings 


Kerr, Iowa 




Parrett 


Bergen 




Cutcheon 


Keteham 




Paynter 


Bingham 




Dalzell 


Kilgore 




Payson 


Blanchard 




Davidson 


Kinsey 




Peel 


Bland 




Pe Lane 


Knapp 




PeningtoQ 



214 PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 



Bliss 


Dockery 


Lacey 


Perkins 


Boatner 


Dolliver 


La Follette 


Perry 


Boothman 


Dunnell 


Laidlaw 


Pickler 


Boutelle 


Dunphy 


Lane 


Post 


Bowden 


Elliott 


Lanham 


Pugsley 


Breckinridge, ArkEllis 


Laws 


Quinn 


Breckinridge, Ky Enloe 


Lee 


Raines 


Brewer 


Evans 


Lehlbach 


Reed, Iowa 


Brickner 


Ewart 


Lester, Ga. 


Reilly 


Brookshire 


Farquhar 


Lester, Va. 


Richardson 


Brosius 


Finley 


Lewis 


Rife 


Brown, J. B. 


Fithian 


Lind 


Robertson 


Browne, Va. 


Flick 


Lodge 


Rockwell 


B runner 


Flood 


Magner 


Rowell 


Buclianan, N. J 


. Forman 


Maish 


Rowland 


Buchanan, Va. 


Forney 


Mansur 


Rush 


Buckalew 


Fowler 


Martin, Ind. 


Russell 


Bullock 


Frank 


McAdoo 


Sanford 


Bunn 


Funston 


McClammy 


Sayers 


Burrows 


Gear 


McClellan 


Scull 


Burton 


Geissenhainer 


McComas 


Sherman 


Butterworth 


Gest 


McCormick 


Shively 


Bynum 


Gibson 


McCreary 


Simonds 


Caldwell 


Gifford 


McKenna 


Smith, 111. 


Campbell 


Goodnight 


McKinely 


Smith, W. Va. 


Candler, Mass. 


Greenhalge 


McMilim 


Smyser 


Cannon 


Grimes 


McRae 


Snider 


Carlton 


Grosvenor 


Miles 


Spinola 


Carter 


Hall 


Mills 


Spooner 


Caruth 


Hansbrough 


Moffitt 


Springer 


Caswell 


Hare 


Montgomery 


Wike 


Stephenson 


Sweeney 


Vandever 


Wilkinson 


Stewart, Ga. 


Tarsney 


Vaux . 


Wilcox 


Stewart, Tex. 


Taylor, J. D. 


Venable 


Williams, 111. 


Stewart, Vt. 


Thomas 


Walker, Mass. 


Williams, 0. 


Stivers 


Tillman 


Wallace, N. Y. 


Wilson, Ky. 


Stockdale 


Townsend, Col. 


Wheeler, Ala. 


Wilson, Mo. 


Stone, Ky. 


Tracey 


Whiting 


Wilson, W. Va. 


Stone, Mo. 


Tucker 


Whitthorne 


Wright 


Strubble 


Turney, Ga. 


Wickham 




Stump 


Turner, Kan. 


Moore, N. H. 





Nay— 0. 



Not Voting — 85. 



Allen, Miss. 


DeHaven 


Milliken 


Stockbridge 


Andrew 


Dibble 


Morgan 


Taylor, E. B. 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Dingley 


Mutchler 


Taylor, 111. 


Barwig 


Dorsey 


Nute 


Taylor, Tenn. 


Bayne 


Edmunds 


O'ijonnell 


Thompson 


Biggs 


Featherstone 


O'Ferrall 


Townsend, Pa. 


Blount 


Fitch 


Outhwaite 


Turner, N. Y. 


Brower 


Flower 


Payne 


Van Schaick 


Browne, T. M. 


Grout 


Peters 


Waddill 


Candler, Ga. 


Harmer 


Phelan 


Wade 


Catchings 


Hatch 


Pierce 


Walker, Mo. 


Cheatham 


Hooker 


Price 


Wallace, Mass. 


Clancy 


Hopkins 


Quackenbush 


Washington 


Clark, Wis. 


Houk 


Randall 


Watson 


Clarke, Ala. 


Kerr, Pa. 


Ray 


Wheeler, Mich 


Coleman 


Lansing 


Reyburn 


Wiley 


Connell 


Lawler 


Rogers 


Wilson, Wash. 


Cooper, Ohio 


Martin, Tex. 


Sawyer 


Yardley 



(21, Record, p. 6314.) 



PARTY HISTORY ON MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS. 215 

In the face of this vote — in the face of the official facts, that 
the Democrats first started the fight against the trusts, and first 
suggested federal legislation against them, and based their bills 
on the commerce clause, with civil and criminal sections, made 
the first and only report on trusts, aided in framing the bill that 
hecame the law, and first suggested the basis for its frame work, 
and aided from first to last to frame and pass the existing law, 
and offered the Bland amendment, which broadened it, agreed to 
at first by both parties in the House — in face of these and other 
facts heretofore stated, it is now charged the Democrats tried to 
defeat this legislation on June 20th, 1890, when Mr. Bland raised 
the question of consideration of the conference report, that com- 
pletely destroyed the Bland amendment, and left the bill in great 
doubt as to its meaning and as to its application to railroads and 
to the Beef Trust. Today we have the Supreme Court split up 
on the application or non-application of this law to railroads. 
We still have the Beef Trust, the Standard Oil Trust, the Cotton 
Bagging Trust and the Whiskey Trust in existence before and at 
the time when this act of 1890 was passed, all which would have 
been covered, if the law had been made plain by the 
Bland amendment, but which the Republicans defeated, thus, 
indirectly aiding railroad combinations, the fieef Trust and their 
kind to rob the people. 



216 INJUNCTION 8UIT8. 



INJUNCTIOI^ SUITS, CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND 
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS BY THE DEFEND- 
ANTS THEREBY INDICTED, INSTITUTED DURING 
THE HARRISON ADMIf^lSTRATION UNDER 
THE ANTI-TRUST ACT OF 1890- 

Hon. W. H. H. Miller, Attorney-General, March 5, 1889 to March 
6, 1892. 

Out of eight opinions rendered by the Federal Court during 
the Harrison administration or 'before Cleveland's term began, 
March 4, 1893, seven were adverse to the Government, one in 
equity and six indictments, five of which were quashed and five 
defendants released and in the sixth demurrers were sustained 
to fourteen out of eighteen counts, with leave granted to file 
"special demurrers," and finally that case was abandoned during 
Cleveland's term. Not a single indictment filed during the 
Harrison administration reached a trial on the facts. 

Here is a list of the cases and the decisions of the courts 
rendered during the Harrison administration before or March 4, 
1893, when Cleveland's second term began. 

U. S. vs. Jellico Coal Co. Coal Combination in Tennessee and 

Kentucky. 

Bill filed September 25, 1890. Preliminary injunction refused Oc- 
tober 13, 1890, 43 Fed Kept. 898, Hammond, J. Injunction granted 
June 4, 1891, 4G Fed. Kept. 432, D. M. Key, J. 

No appeal taken. 

WHISKY TRUST CASES. 
GOVERNMENT LOSES EACH AND EVERY CASE. 

U. S. vs. Greenhut and others. 

Indictment May 1, 1892, quashed May 16, 1892. 50th Kept. P. 409, 
Nelson, J. 
In re Corning (a) . 

Indictment quashed June 11, 1892. 51 Fed. Kept. P. 205, Ricks, J. 
In re Terrell (a). 

Indictment quashed in habeas corpus June 28, 1892. 51 Fed. Kept. 
P. 213, Lacombe, J. 
In re Greene (a) . 

Indictment quashed August 4, 1892. 52 Fed. Kept. P. 104, Jackson, 
C. J. — (afterwards member of Federal Supreme Court). 
U. S. vs. Nelson. 

Indictment (Lumber Trust) 1892. Demurrer to all counts sus- 
tained. 52 Fed. Kept. 646, October 10, 1892, Nelson J. 

(a) The Attorney-General omitted to mention in his recent report 
to Congress Sen. Doc. 526 of the Corning, Terrell and Greene cases — 
defendants indicted under the anti-truat law of July 2, 1890. 

CASH REGISTER CASE. 

U. S. vs. Patterson. 

Indictment, 18 counts. Demurrer sustained as to all counts, except 
4, 9, 14 and' 18, with leave to file "special demurrer." 55 Fed. Kept. 
605, February 28, 1893, Putnam, J. 
U. S. vs. Knight (Sugar Trust Case). 

Injunction bill filed May 2, 1892, 



INJUNCTION SUITS. 217 



LABOR COMBINATION. 

U. S. vs. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans. 
Bill pled November 10, 1892. 

RAILROAD COMBINATION. 

U- S. vs. Trans-Missonri Freight Association. 

Injunction bill filed January 6, 1892. Bill dismissed November 28, 
1S92, the Federal Court (Riner, J.) holding the anti-trust act of July 
2, 1890, did not apply to railroads or railroad comhinations, 
SUMMARY: 

4 Equity cases filed. 

1 Injunction granted. Jellico Case. No appeal. 

1 Injunction refused. Bill dismissed. Railroad combination. 

1 Not tried. (Sugar Trust Case.) 

1 Not decided. Possibly being considered by the Court {hefore 
March 4, 1893), as the case was decided soon thereafter — March 25, 
1893, granting an injunction against Workingmen's etc. Council. 

(54 Fed. Rept. 994. Affirmed June 13, 1893, 57 Fed. Rept. 85.) 

5 Indictments quashed and defendants released. 

1 Indictment (Cash Register case). Demurrer sustained as to 14 
out of 18 counts, with leave to file "special demurrers" — February 
28, 1893. Pending. 

Total cases pending March 4, 1893, and inherited by Cleveland ad- 
ministration, 3 in equity and 1 indictment, afterwards abandoned. 

It is perfectly plain from these indisputable facts, that the 
Harrison ^administration signally failed to successfully enforce 
the Sherman anti-trust lata. 

Not a single indictment stood the test of habeas corpus proceed- 
ings or of demurrer (except one, partially, Cash Register case), 
hefore the Cleveland administration. In this case, June, 1893 
(59th Fed. Rept. 280) on rehearing, the general demurrer and 
the special demurrer, allowed February 28, 1893, were overruled 
and answer required. This is the last published report of this 
case. 

Attorney-General Moody states that this case "was allowed to 
lapse because of the consolidation of the complaining witness 
with defendants, said witness being in possession of the evidence 
relied on." It never reached a trial on the facts, nor did any 
other indictment found during the Hai'rison administration. 

Not a single case, under the Harrison administration had been 
appealed to the Supreme Court, although the law had been enacted 
over two years and seven months, hefore the Cleveland term 
began March 4, 1893. As yet, no one knew what construction 
that court of last resort would put on the law in either equity or 
criminal cases. 

The District Court (Riner, J.) had held the law did not apply 
to railroads or railroad comhinations — a very important case and 
decision — while four or five Federal judges had quashed the 
different indictments found as "insufficient" and otherwise fatally 
defective, each judge in his construction of the law differing, 
more or less, with the other judges. 



218 INJUNCTION SUITS. 



INCOMPETENT COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT— UNDER 
HARRISON ADMINISTRATION. 

In the Greenhut case, Nelson, J., said: 

"The indictment in this particular (having stated it) is clearly in- 
sufflcient, according to the elementary rules of criminal pleading and 
charges no oflfense within the second section of the statute." Indict- 
ment quashed. 

In the lumber trust case, the court said the indictment failed 
to state " the facts constituting the offense." Case dismissed. 

With more than six, nearly seven, cases out of eight, decided 
against the Government, witJi the Supreme Court yet to construe 
the meaning of the law, the Cleveland administration must have 
been naturally and inevitably much embarrassed in knowing how 
to successfully proceed under this trust law, and particularly in 
new cases, equity or criminal. 

Thus confronted, the Attorney-General proceeded, in due course, 
to get the Supreme Court to construe the law. The all-important, 
old and pending sugar trust and railroad cases, which had been 
filed by Attorney-General Miller were carried to the higher court. 

SUGAR TRUST CASE. 

The bill in the sugar trust case was dismissed by every court 
that tried it, as the official reports of the case show: 

U. S. vs. Knight (Sugar Trust). 

Injunction bill filed May 2, 1892. (Harrison administration.) Bill 
dismissed January 30, 1894. Butler, J. Decree affirmed by Circuit 
Court of Appeals (Atcheson, Dallas and Greene, JJ., March 25, 1894). 
Judgment affirmed by Federal Supreme Court January 21, 1895, 156 
U. S. Kept. P. 1. Harlan, J., dissenting. 

The cause of this unhappy result in this case is thus explained 
by ex-Senator Edmunds: 

"If the famous Knight case had been instituted and carried forward 
with suitable allegations of the precise nature and history of the 
Knight affair, and had been supported, as it could have been, by ade- 
quate proof of the facts it set forth, I believe the Supreme Court of 
the United States would not havfe had the least difficulty in prevent- 
ing the carrying on of the combination under consideration, and put- 
ting an end to it, as it can still do with similar ones. The bill of com- 
plaint in the case was unhappily not drawn in such a way as to pre- 
sent the question which now so much commands just public concern. 
What is needed is not so much more legislation as competent and 
earnest administration of the laws that exist." — (Senator Edmunds' 
letter, June 2, 1903, to Mr. John A. Scheicher, 110 Fifth Avenue, 
New York, N. Y.) 

Senator Edmunds, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Com- 
mittee, aided in the preparation of and reported in 1890 the anti- 
trust act of July 2, 1890, the so-called Sherman law. 

The criticism of Judge Edmunds, of the Attorney-General (Hon. 
W. H. H. Miller) under the Harrison administration, is in keep- 
ing with and supported by the remarks of the court in the 



INJUNCTION SUITS. 219 

Greenhut and Nelson cases, already quoted. But whether Judge 
Edmunds is correct in his criticism or not, the fact remains that 
the unfortunate results finally had in the sugar trust case did 
more to mystify the meaning and application of the anti-trust 
law of July 2, 1890, and block its enforcement than any decision 
rendered under that statute. But the Democratic administration 
did not remain idle in these cases and was not deterred by the 
resulting adverse and discouraging conditions surrounding the 
administration or meaning of this law. 

Attorney-General Harmon (Cleveland administration) next 
pressed the Trans-Missouri (Railroad Combination) case to the 
higher courts, with the following results: 

U. S. VS. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION. 

Circuit Court of Appeals (Sanborn and Thayer, Sharis, dissenting), 
October 2, 1893, affirmed the decision of Judge Einer (November 28, 
1892), construing the Sherman Anti-trust law as not applicable to 
railroads. An appeal was taken and tlie case argued December 8 and 
9, 1896, by Attorney-General Harmon in the Supreme Court, and 
March 22, 1897, that Court (Fuller, Peckham, Harlan, Brown and 
Brewer) reversed the decisions of the lower courts (Sharis, Fields, 
White, Gray, dissenting), and held that the law did apply to railroads 
and railroad comhinations, and perpetually enjoined the defendants. 

Previous to the trial in this case the Supreme Court, this combina- 
tion had voluntarily dissolved, and for that reason defendants in- 
sisted in the Supreme Court, that the bill should be dismissed, thus 
raising an important jurisdictional question. But the Court repudi- 
ated this contention and enjoined the defendants from forming future 
combinations contrary to the statute. 

Thus, two important questions under the Anti-Trust law were, for 
the first time, settled in this case, to wit: 

First, That the law applied to railroads and railroad combinations. 

Second, That jurisdiction is not lost in such cases, although the un- 
lawful combination assailed dissolves before the trial in the Supreme 
Court. 

This is the first case won in the Supreme Court 'by the Govern- 
ment under this law. It was the first construction of the law hy 
this court holding that the law applied to railroads. It is the 
leading case and has since been followed by the Supreme Court 
and of course by the lower courts. 

This was also a great victory for Judge Harmon, the Cleveland 
administration and the people. 

Since the Supreme Court had only by a bare majority (5 to 4) 
and also by reversing the District Court and the Circuit Court of 
Appeals held that this trust law did apply to common carriers, 
the railroads in New York formed another railroad combination, 
"the Joint Traffic Association," and it is said, by high authority, 
they did so for the sole purpose of trying to get the Supreme 
Court to reverse its construction of the law in the Trans-Missouri 
case, holding this law applied to railroads. 

As soon as this New York Association was formed. Judge 
Harmon- promptly (January 8, 1896) filed an injunction bill 
against it. Both the lower federal courts dismissed the bill. An 
appeal was taken and the Supreme Court of the United States 
reversed the lower courts and reaffirmed, October 24, 1898, its 
former construction of the law and enjoined and presumably 



220 INJUNCTION SUITS. 



broke up this, a second, railroad combination. But the Supreme 
Court in this decision was again divided, this time 5 to 3, Mr. 
Justice McKenna (who had succeeded Judge Gray) not sitting. 

PIPE TRUST CASE FILED. 

Judge Harmon filed, December 10, 1896, an injunction bill 
against a huge pipe trust in Tennessee. The District Court dis- 
missed the bill, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this 
decision, finding a trust existed and holding the law applied also 
to industrial combinations. This judgment was affirmed Decem- 
ber 4, 1899, by the Supreme Court, all the judges agreeing, except 
Judge Harlan, who dissented on one point. 

Judge Peckham wrote the opinion of the court in the Trans- 
Missouri, Joint Traffic and Pipe cases. In the Pipe case, the 
court cited the Missouri and Joint Traffic cases and reaffirmed the 
construction of the law given in those cases. These three cases 
were also cited in the recent Merger case — a railroad combina- 
tion — and the construction of the law made in these three cases 
was again reannounced and followed — but again by a 5 to 4 
decision. 

Attorney-General Harmon was most fortunate in instituting the 
pipe trust case, for more reasons than one. 

In that case the court explained the unfortunate sugar trust 
case decision, as holding that, Congress could not control (under 
the Commerce Clause) the pure and simple "manufacture" of 
products, thus opening the way around that decision, for the 
vigorous enforcement of this law. 

The court in the Pipe case (December, 1890) held that Congress 
could and Congress had in the trust law of 1890 "prohibited" 
"every" contract, agreement, combination or monopoly which 
even tended directly to restrain interstate or foreign commerce. 
The opinion was sweeping, clear and clean cut. 

HENCEFORWARD, THE TRUST ACT OP JULY, 1890, IS 
PERFECTLY CLEAR AS APPLYING TO INDUSTRIAL COM- 
BINATIONS. HENCEFORWARD, NO EXCUSE FOR LACK OF 
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT THE LAW DID. THE COURTS, 
BY CONSTRUCTION, HAVE SETTLED THAT. IT APPLIES 
TO BOTH COMMON CARRIERS AND INDUSTRIAL COMBI- 
NATIONS. 

The Trans-Missouri case (a railroad combination) was hegun 
in the Harrison and ended in the Cleveland administration. The 
Joint Traffic (railroad combination) and pipe (industrial com- 
bination) cases were degun in the Cleveland and finally decided 
in the McKinley administration. Hence, neither the McKinley 
or Roosevelt administrations are to be excused for failing to 
repress trusts outlawed by this statute. The way and law are 
clear. 

With the law now settled as to railroad and industrial combina- 
tions, the Department of Justice complained ahout the lack of 
money, officers, agents and machinery to execute the law. Con- 
gress supplied all this over three years ago. Judge Bartlett 
(Democrat) on the floor of the House was first to propose an 
amendment to an appropriation bill — reported by the Republicans 



INJUNCTION 8UIT8. 221 

without such an appropriation — 'giving tke Department of Justice 
$250,000 to be exclusively used by that Department in executing 
this law. Whereupon Mr. Hepburn (Republican) breaking 
silence, promptly proposed ah amendment to the Bartlett amend- 
ment by appropriating $500,000, which was immediately done, 
and the cash made available. 

This proved to be more money than the Department could use 
or did use in the manner it executed the law. Congress, therefore, 
diverted a part of this fund to the use of the Interstate Com- 
mission. 

Attorney-General Knox used a large amount of it to rush 
through to the Supreme Court the Merger case. He had it 
appealed and filed in that Court by May 11, 1903. On May 18, 
1903, he filed a petition and asked the court to advance this case 
on the docket because of "preeminent public importance" and it 
was set for hearing December 14-15, 1903. It was then heard and 
shortly thereafter decided, and the defendant railroad combina- 
tion was enjoined, but the defendant — millionaires — were never 
indicted, yet the Democrats insisted that they be treated like any 
other law defying persons — indicted. 

But Mr. Knox left the beef trust case behind. It dragged its 
weary way to the Supreme Court and that Court affirmed the 
lower court enjoining this trust. But the beef trust disobeyed 
the injunction — as expected. 

The Democrats demanded that it and its members be indicted. 
They were indicted, hut the case was not tried on its merits. It 
was tried on the pleadings, and the members of this trust were 
acquitted and discharged by the court — given an "immunity 
bath." The defendant corporation only was fined, the Court held 
that a corporation could not claim immunity under the statute, 
following a recent decision in the tobacco trust case. The totacco 
case grew out of investigations hegun hy the tohacco growers of 
Tennessee and Kentucky and their friends, who appealed to the 
Department of Justice over two years ago — ^when Mr. Knox was 
Attorney-General — to investigate .this trust, which Mr. Knox did 
not do, T)ut which Attorney-General Moody did do, with the result 
that a branch of the tobacco trust was indicted in the city of New 
York, and other proceedings are being had to overcome and break 
up this trust. 

It is true that the Roosevelt administration, more than any 
other, has enforced the anti-trust law, but this has been done 
during the administration of Attorney-General Moody and not 
when Mr. Knox was Attorney-General, and after Mr. Roosevelt's 
administration had been fully and perfectly equipped by Congress 
to execute the law — previous administrations had not been. 

Complying with the imperative demand of the people and the 
ancient and continuous entreaties of the Democrats in Congress — 
as the Record will show — the second Roosevelt administration 
has insisted on and has caused indictments to be found against 
certain trusts, but the administration, it is recently reported, 
proposes to fine the guilty corporations (which cannot be impris- 
oned) while the lawless individuals, members of the trusts, who 
can be both fined and imprisoned, are to be only fined. These 



222 INJUNCTION SUITS. 



creatures are to go free, wlio have so long defied the law, disobeyed 
injunctions, put up prices on the defenseless people, restricted 
their liberties and dealt out to the people just so much to eat and 
so much to wear, at the trust-fixed price. 

The Democrats demand, and the people expect, that every man, 
whether rich or poor, who disobeys this trust law, shall be fined 
and imprisoned. The Democrats were first to suggest a criminal 
section to this law. They have from first to last demanded that 
both the equity and criminal sections be enforced and particularly 
the criminal section. An injunction can be and is disobeyed. 
But the prison cells around the guilty man compels obedience 
and prevents him for the time being from continuing this career 
as an outlaw on the outside of the prison. 

The law was new and undefined during the Harrison adminis- 
tration. That administration had no special fund for officers or 
agents, etc., to enforce the law. The law was not only new and 
undefined when the Cleveland administration began as shown, but 
the decisions of the lower courts, and particularly the, decision 
in the Greene case by Circuit Judge Jackson and the railroad case 
by Riner, J., had heen against the Government. 

The Cleveland administration had no special fund, officers, etc., 
to enforce the law. But, as shown, the Democrats had the 
Supreme Court to define the law in the two railroad cases and 
the pipe case, and also filed other suits unnecessary to mention 
here. 

Under the McKinley administration the way was clear. The 
law was well understood after the pipe case — 1897. The law of 
course has been fully understood during the Roosevelt adminis- 
trations, because of these and other decisions previous to his term. 
And in addition to this, all the money and machinery that the 
Department of Justice called for was given to the Roosevelt 
administration to enforce the law, which in the meantirfle was 
broadened and otherwise made more drastic and powerful. 

There is absolutely no excuse for not, long before this, wiping 
out the one hundred and fifty or more lawless trusts that were 
several years ago shown officially to be in actual offensive 
existence. 

The people and Democrats in Congress loudly complained 
against trusts and the non-enforcement of the trust laws by 
Attorney-General Griggs during the McKinley administration. 
The Democrats demanded the execution of existing law, claiming 
it was sufficient if vigorously executed. 

About this time the New York World addressed a letter on the 
subject to Senator Sherman and on October 3, 1898, Mr. Sherman, 
over his own signature, replied: 

"The anti-trust law is valid and sufficient. If an attorney-general 
and court could be brought to enforce it, relief to the people would at 
once be had." 

Ex-Senator Edmunds spoke with great force on the subject and 
said the existing law only needed to be enforced. 



INJUNCTION SUITS, 223 



THE SHERMAN BILL WAS NOT PASSED. 

Aiken, S. C, Jmie 2, 1903. 
Dear Sir: 

Yours of the 27tli ult. lias readied me here. The statement of 
Senator Vest contained in the slip you inclose is correct. I have not 
the Congressional Record or the Senate tiles to refer to, but I am sure 
on looking them up you will find that the bill reported by 
Mr. Sherman from the Fmance Committee was not the one passed 
by Congress, but that the one passed by Congress was reported 
by the Judiciary Committee to which tne Sherman bill, after 
it was reported from the Finance Committee and discussed and 
probably more or less amended, tvas referred for consideration; 
and that the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed 
was, in every essential respect, entirely different from the Sherman 
hill, and was purely a substitute for it. 

The Judiciary Committee was, I think, unanimously of the opinion 
that the bill it reported was, in respect of its general scope, an exer- 
cise of the whole constitutional power of Congress, which could only 
legislate for the freedom and regulation of commerce with foreign 
nations and among the several states; and I am of the same opinion 
still. 

ONLY DIFFICULTY IS NON-ENFORCEMENT. 

The only difficulty with the bill we reported and which became the 
law, was the want of administration — that is to say, that the law 
was and is entirely capable of putting an end to such so-called trusts 
and such combinations as interfere with or restrain commerce among 
the states, etc., of the officers of the Government, having charge of 
the enforcement of law, understand their duty and are v/illing to do 
it, being, of course, supplied with the sufficient means to put it into 
force. 

NEGLIGENCE OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL MILLER LOST 
SUGAR TRUST CASE. 

If the famous Knight case had been instituted and carried forward 
with suitable allegations of the precise nature and history of the 
Knight affair, and had been supported, as it could have been, by 
adequate proof of the facts it set forth, I believe the Supreme Court 
of the United States would not have had the least difficulty in 
preventing the carrying on of the combination under consideration, 
and putting an end to it, as it can still do with similar ones. The 
bill of complaint in the case was unhappily not drawn in such a way 
as to present the question which now so much commands just public 
concern. 

What is needed is not, so much, more legislal;ion as competent 
and earnest administration of the laws that exist. I have no doubt 
that the present Attorney-General and his very able assistant will 
find easy means, if supplied with the necessary funds, to arrest the 
progress and undo the mischievous work of such great and injurious 
combinations as have so largely come into existence. 

(Signed) Very truly yours, 

Geo. F. Edmunds. 
John A. Sleicher, Esq., 

110 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 

While the Democrats w^ere urging the enforeemelit of existing 
anti-trust laws, both by injunction and indictment, the Republi- 
cans were keeping company with the trusts by proposing a con- 
stitutional amendment in effect delay. The Democrs.ts voted 
against the proposed amendment, Fifty-seventh Congress, because 
unnecessary, Congress already having sufficient power. They 



224 INJUNCTION 8UIT8. 



tried to amend but voted for the Littlefield anti-trust bill, but 
even this the Republican Senate killed. Senators Hoar and 
Spooner vigorously opposing it on constitutional and other 
grounds. Senator Jones (Democrat) was defeated in his motion 
to take up and consider the Littlefield bill; the Republicans 
voting "nay." 

Even President Roosevelt undertook to chloroform public 
opinion and defer the vigorous enforcement of existing laws by 
himself in many speeches, and notably at Fitchburg, Mass., 
September 2, 1902, urging a constitutional amendment, giving 
Congress more power to overcome the trusts and destroy the 
rights of the states. As reported by the Associated Press, and 
published in the Chicago Record Herald, September 3, 1902, 
President Roosevelt at Litchfield, Mass., said: 

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT WANTED TO AMEND 
THE CONSTITUTION. 

"I believe something can be done by national legislation. When 
I state that I ask you to note my words, I say I believe. It is not 
in my power to say I know. When I talk to you of my own executive 
duties I can tell you definitely what will and what will not be done. 
When I speak of the actions of anyone else I can only say that I 
believe something more can be done by national legislation. I 
believe it will be done. I think we can get laws which will measurably 
increase the power of the Federal Government over corporations; 
but, gentlemen, I believe firmly that in the end there will have to be 
an amendment to the Constitution of the nation conferring additional 
power upon, the Federal Government to deal with corporations. To 
^ get that will be a matter of difficulty and a matter of time." 

This, of course, meant delay, delay, delay. 

PROSECUTING THE TRUSTS— CORPORATIONS GET OFF 
WITH SMALL FINES. 

COMMENTS ON ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 

The report of the Attorney-General (Senate Document, No. 526) 
shows that during Roosevelt's administration five indictments 
have been procured under the act of July 2, 1890, the Sherman 
anti-trust law. In one of these cases, U. S. vs. Federal Salt Com- 
pany, there was a conviction, and the company was fined $1,000. 

In another case, U. S. vs. Armour & Co., et al., several corpora- 
tions and their agents and officers were indicted July 1, 1905. 
The defendants interposed pleas of immunity in bar, and these 
pleas were sustained by the court as to the individual defendants 
but overruled as to the corporations. (Report, p. 9.) 

The case of U. S. vs. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company, et 
al., is an indictment found May 25, 1906, against 31 corporations 
and 25 individuals engaged in the fertilizer business in the 
Southern States, charged with conspiracy to violate Section 5440, 
U. S. Revised Statutes (the anti-trust law of 1890). It is still 
pending. (Report, p. 9.) 

An indictment was procured in June last, against several lumber 
companies for violation of the same law, and is still pending. No 
individuals indicted. Case still pending. (Report, p. 9.) 



INJUNCTION S'UITS. 225 

In June also an indictment was procured under the same law 
against members of the liquorice division of the tobacco trust 
(U. S. vs. McAndrews & Forbes Co., et al.) It is still pending. 
The tobacco growers of Tennessee and Kentucky nearly three 
years since began this investigation. 

Under the act of 1890, therefore, there was only one conviction; 
a plea in bar has been sustained in one case, and three cases are 
pending, according to Mr, Moody's report. 

Two of the injunction bills were filed in our outlying territory — 
Hawaii and Alaska. 

Under the act to regulate commerce (act of 1887) as amended, 
there have been six indictments, five of which were nol-prossed 
and one dismissed. (Report, p. 19.) 

Under the Elkins act approved February 19, 1903, there have 
been 11 indictments for receiving rebates; 19 for granting rebates; 
5 for conspiracy to obtain rebates. This act prohibits imprison- 
ment for granting or receiving rebates, but not for conspiracy to 
violate that act and the act of 1887 to regulate commerce. Only 
the five indictments for conspiracy, therefore, involve punishment 
by imprisonment. These were all for conspiracy to receive 
rebates, and were, of course, against individuals. In three of 
these cases there were convictions. In U. S. vs. Weil, et. al., the 
defendants severally pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay 
fines aggregating $25,000 and to imprisonment. In U. S. vs. 
Thomas & Taggart, defendants, were convicted and sentenced to 
fine and imprisonment. In U. S. vs. Price & Wells, defendants, 
were convicted and fined, but not imprisoned. (Report, p. 17.) 



22G THE PROSECUTION OF THE TBUST8. 

THE PROSECUTION OF THE TRUSTS. 

A RECORD OF MASTERLY INEFFICIENCY. 

On the 29tli of June, 1906, Attorney-General Moody, in com- 
pliance with a resolution of the Senate, submitted a statement 
of all suits instituted by the Department of Justice under the 
Sherman anti-trust law, the Interstate Commerce law and the 
so-called "Elkins law," and the disposition made of such suits, etc. 
(See Senate Document No. 52 6, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.) 

This report contains 26 pages, but on page 19, there is a sum- 
mary which shows in a general way what has been accomplished 
with all the fuss and expense attending the pretended prosecution 
of the trusts under the act to regulate commerce, as amended, 
and the Blkins act. 

"SUMiVIARY. 
"CASES UNDER ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE. 

^'President Cleveland's first Administration, 1885-1889. — One indict- 
ment for giving rebates: JSTol-prossed. 

''President Harrison's Administration, 1889-1893. — ^Thirteen indict- 
ments for charging less than tariff rates: 2 convictions as to one 
defendant: nol-prossed as to others. In one case defendant fined 
$3,000; in the other defendant fined $1 and costs; 7 nol-prossed; I 
acquittal; 2 quashed; 1 dismissed. One indictment for prejudice in 
transporting goods: Quashed. Four indictments for failure to post 
tariffs : 2 nol-prossed ; 2 quashed. 

"Tv/o indictments for false weighing, 2 convictions — defendant in 
one case fined $100 on each count, in the other two, defendants each 
fined $2,000 and sentenced to prison for 18 months; both pardoned; 
1 indictment for selling tickets at less than tariff rates, acquitted; 2 
indictments for -ialse billing, 1 conviction — defendant fined $100; 1 
nol-prossed; 10 indictments for inducing and conspiring to discrimi- 
nate, 6 nol-prossed, 2 acquitted, 2 quashed; 2 indictments for giving 
rebates, 1 nol-prossed as to one defendant, other defendant acquitted, 
1 nol-prossed. 

"Total: thirty-five indictments, 5 convictions, 18 nol-prossed, 7 
quashed, 1 dismissed, 4 acquitted. 

"Ten petitions to enforce orders of Commission, 7 dismissed, 1 case 
discontinued, 1 pending, 1 granted; 2 proceedings to compel witness 
to testify before grand jury dismissed. 

"President Cleveland's second Administration, 1893-1897. — One 
indictment for discrimination in sale of tickets, dismissed; 4 indict- 
ments for charging less than tariff rates, 1 conviction as to one and 
nol-prossed as to other defendant ; 3 convictions, 1 case defendant fined 
$1,000; 1 case, two defendants each fined $4,000; 1 case two defend- 
ants each fined $50; 1 case defendant fined costs; 5 indictments for 
giving rebates, 3 nol-prossed, 1 acquitted as to one, nol-prossed as to 
other defendants; 1 conviction, defendant fined $500; 3 indictments 
for inducing to discriminate, all quashed; 4 indictments for false 
billing, 1 defendant convicted and other acquitted; convicted party 
fined $350; 3 nol-prossed; 2 indictments for issuing free passes, both 
quashed. - 

"Total: Nineteen indictments, 6 convictions, 1 dismissal, 8 nol- 
prossed, 3 quashed,. 1 acquitted. 

"Seventeen petitions to enforce orders of Commission; 11 dismissed, 
3 discontinued, 1 modified order of Commission complied with and 
case dismissed, 1 order ^Qwplied with and case discontinued, 1 pejid- 



THE PROSECUTION OF THE TRUSTS. 227 

ing. One original petition to restrain defendants from making dis- 
criminatory rates dismissed; 1 prosecution for contempt to compel 
witness to testify, defendant convicted, application for habeas corpus 
denied; 04 petitions for mandamus to compel filing of annual reports; 

2 dismissed, 1 granted, 61 discontinued because carriers agreed to 
comply. 

"PRESIDENT McKINLEY'S ADMINISTRATION, 1897-1901. 
(September 14). 

"Twelve indictments for giving rebates, against same parties, not 
prosecuted; 2 indictments for departure from published rates; in both 
cases 1 defendant convicted — nol-prossed as to other; in both cases 
fined $350; 3 indictments for false billing, 1 nol-prossed, 1 conviction, 
defendant fined $1,000, 1 acquittal; 1 indictment for conspiracy, nol- 
prossed; 1 indictment for ol3structing administration of act, convic- 
tion, defendant fined $500; 3 indictments for false weighing, 1 con- 
viction as to one defendant, fined $1,000, nol-prossed as to others, 2 
nol-prossed. 

"Total : Twenty-two indictments, 5 convictions, 1 acquittal, 4 nol- 
prossed, 12 not prosecuted; 5 petitions to enforce orders of commission, 

3 dismissed, 1 discontinued, 1 granted; 1 petition to declare pooling 
combination illegal, granted. 

"PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION, SEPTEM- 
BER 14, 1901— JUNE, 1906. 

"Two indictments for charging less than established rates, 2 nol- 
prossed; 4 indictments for pooling, 1 dismissed, 3 nol-prossed. 

"Total, 6 indictments; 5 nol-prossed, 1 dismissed. 

"Eight petitions to enjoin departure from published rates, tem- 
porary injunctions granted and answer filed; 10 petitions to enforce 
orders of Commission, 1 defendant complied and petition dismissed, 
3 petitions dismissed, 2 injunctions granted, 1 discontinued, 3 pend- 
ing; 3 petitions to compel filing of annual reports, 1 dismissed, 2 
discontinued. 

"CASES UNDER ELKINS ACT. 

"Eleven indictments for receiving rebates — ^5 convictions, in one 
case defendants fined $1,025 each, in four cases defendant corporation 
fined $15,000; 1 acquittal, 5 pending; 19 indictments for granting 
rebates — 1 conviction, defendant corporation fined $40,000, 2 indi- 
vidual defendants fined $10,000 each, 2 nol-prossed, 16 pending; 5 
indictments for conspiring to obtain rebates — 3 convictions, in one 
case defendant fined $1,025, in one case defendant fined $6,000 and 
given 6 months in jail and tne other fined $4,000 and given 3 months, 
in one case defendants fined in the aggregate $25,000, 1 nol-prossed, 
1 acquittal; 1 indictment for conspiring to grant rebates, pending. 

"Total: 36 indictments, 9 convictions, 2 acquittals, 3 nol-prossed, 
22 pending.* 

"Six petitions to enjoin departure from published rates, temporary 
injunctions granted; 1 petition to enforce order of commission, dis- 
missed; 1 petition to restrain railroad from giving preferences and 
rebates, granted; 1 petition to compel filing of annual reports, dis- 
continued; 2 proceedings to require defendants to testify, both suc- 
cessful." 

The Attorney-General's report shows also that between March 17, 
1903, and June 28, 1906, the work of his office in the special matter 
of prosecuting the trusts had cost $159,709.66; and that Congress had 
allowed the Interstate Commerce Commission to spend in the same 
matter the sum of $45,000; making in all $204,709.66. 



(*These indictments were returned within the last month or two, 
and the cases will be shortly brought to trial,) 



228 THE PROSECUTION OF THE TRUSTS. 



The Elkins Act went into effect February 19, 1903; and on March 
17, 1903, Congress appropriated $500,000 as a special fund for the 
enforcement of the anti-trust laws. There had been great trouble 
about money for that purpose under Roosevelt's predecessors. But 
since March, 1903, there has been no lack of funds — only full and 
efficient action has been lacking. 

Commenting upon Mr. Moody's report, the Providence Journal, a 
Republican newspaper, says: 

"The report of Attorney-General Moody, recently issued, covering 
everything done up to date, shows that the Roosevelt administration 
has a clean record of failure in all six of the eases brought under the 
interstate commerce act, and but three convictions under the Elkins 
Act; and this although a better understanding of tnese laws, due to 
the added length of time they have been on the statute book, gives 
less excuse. Yet for some reason the administration has a record for 
'doing things.' Unfortunately, many of the 'things' amount to nothing 
anyway, and might as well be left undone as to be so badly attempted. 
The latest 'fizzle' is the prosecution of the Standard Oil Company. 
'After a series of conferences,' the news reports say, the Attorney- 
General has decided not to indict John D. Rockefeller. He decides to 
indict the Standard Oil Company as a corporation, but tne officials 
of the company are, not to be 'inconvenienced.' He might as well 
indict the office chairs. The offenses charged against the company, 
for which they are to be called upon to answer, seem almost ludicrous. 

"In the light of what Texas and Missouri and Kansas did when 
they set themselves to break up the monopoly Avhich the Standard 
Oil was building up in their territory, it certainly seems as ii the 
Federal Government could do more than collect a fine. Yet Mr. 
Moody and the ^resident are content to proceed against the trust 
because of rebates received under the form of discounted charges 
from the Lake Shore Railroad. If they get a conviction, the only 
punishment is a fine. And for this they pose as the stern, uncom- 
promising foes of all monopolies and trusts. If the responsible heads 
and owners of the Standard Oil Company cannot be reached, brought 
into court, compelled to plead to charges of conspiracy in restraint 
of trade, and extortion, and take tneir chances of going to jail, then 
the Federal Government snould let them and their corporation alone, 
and make it clear tnat it is powerless against them. For it would be." 

On page 9 of Attorney-General Moody's report there is also a 
summary of suits and prosecutions instituted by the United States 
under the Sherman anti-trust law of July 2, 1890, which shows 
somewhat better results, but is still discouraging. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL MOODY'S SUMMARY. 

President Harrison's Administration, 1889-1893. — Four bills in 
equity; 3 injunctions granted; 1 dismissed. Three indictments; 1 
quashed; 1 demurrer sustained; 1 discontinued. 

President Cleveland's second Administration, 1893-1897. — Four bills 
in equity; 3 injunctions granted; 1 dismissed. Two informations (for 
contempt in violating injunctions) : 1 quashed; 1 conviction. Two 
indictments; 1 quashed; 1 dismissed. 

President McKinley's Administration, 1897-1901 (September 14). 
— Three bills in equity; 2 injunctions granted; I dismissed. 

President Roosevelt's Administration, September 14, 1901. — June, 
1906. Eleven bills in equity; 6 injunctions granted; 5 pending. Five 
indictments; 3 pending; 1 conviction; 1 plea in bar sustained. Two 
proceedings for contempt in refusing to testify before grand jury: 
Convictions. 



WHOLES^ALE PRIGE8 1897-1905. 



329 



WHOLESALE PRICES 1897-1905. 

FROM THE BULLETIN, MARCH, 1906, OF THE BUREAU OF 
LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. 



Average 
Year. price. 

1897 Salt: American, per barrel 66 

1905 Salt : American, per barrel .75 

1897 Sugar : granulated, per pound 04497 

1905 Sugar : granulated, per pound 05256 

CLOTHS AND CLOTHING. 

Average 
price. 

Grain bags : 2 bushel, Amoskeag .1300 

Grain bags : 2 bushel, Amoskeag 1533 

Blankets: 11-4, 5 lbs. to the pair, all wool. .750 

Blankets: 11-4, 5 lbs. to the pair, all wool. 1.000 

Boots and Shoes 9500 

Boots and Shoes 1.0042 

Carpets : Brussels 5-frame, Bigelow .9600 

Carpets : Brussels 5-frame, Bigelow 1.1520 

Carpets : Ingrain 2-ply, Lowell 4320 

Carpets : Ingrain 2 ply, Lowell .5520 

Cotton Flannels: 2% yards to the pound.. .0575 

Cotton Flannels: 2% yards to the pound. . .0854 

Cotton thrd. : 6-cd., 200-yd. spls., J. & P. Cts. .030503 
Cotton thrd. : 6-cd., 200-j'd. spls., J. & P. Cts. .037240 

Drillings : 30-inch, Stark A 0463 

Drillings : 30-inch, Stark A 0633 

Flannels : with 4-4, Ballard Vale, No. 3 3113 

Flannels : with 4-4, Ballard Vale, No. 3 4461 

Leather : harness, oak, country middles. . . . .2433 

Leather : harness, oak, country middles. . . . .3333 

Leather : sole, oak 3079 

Leather : sole, oak 3663 

Overcoatings : beaver ; Moscow, all wool . . . 1.7670 
Overcoatings: beaver; Moscow, all wool... 2.4413 
Horse Blankets: 6 pounds each, all wool. . .570 

Horse Blankets: 6 pounds each, all wool.. .750 

Overcoatings : kersey, standard, 27 to 28 oz. 1.1833 
Overcoatings : kersey, standard, 27 to 28 oz. 1.8313 
Shawls : stand'd, all wool, 72x144 in., 42 oz. 4.0970 
Shawls : stand'd, all wool, 72x144 in., 42 oz. 2.2400 

Sheetings : bleached, 10-4, Pepperell 1738 

Sheetings: bleached, 10-4, Pepperj^ll 2267 

Sheetings : brown, 4-4, Atlantic A .0490 

Sheetings : brown, 4-4, Atlantic A 0639 

Suitings : clay worsted diagonal, 12 oz 7337 

Suitings: clay worsted diagonal, 12 oz 1.0931 

Trouserings : fancy worsted, 22 to 23 oz. . . 1.7955 
Trouserings : fancy worsted, 22 to 23 oz. . . 2.2331 
Women's dress goods : cashmere, all wool, 

Atlantic J 2389 

1905 Women's dress goods : cashmere, all wool, 

Atlantic J . . 3730 

1897 Petroleum: crude 7869 

1905 Petroleum: crude 1.3842 



Relative 
price. 

93.9 
107.2 

95.1 
111.2 



Relative 
price. 

92.9 
109.6 

89.3 
119.0 

96.0 
101.5 

95.29 
115.1 

90.9 
116.2 

81.4 
121.0 

98.4 
120.1 

88.9 
121.5 

82.6 
118.4 

93.9 
115.0 

91.6 
108.9 

84.9 
117.3 

99.5 
130.9 

94.9 
146.8 

89.5 
117.5 

92.3 
120.3 

88.6 
115.6 

89.1 
132.7 

92.3 
111.6 

82.2 

128.4 

86.5 

152.1 



2;]o 



WHOLESALE PRICES 1897-1905. 



METALS AND IMPLEMENTS. 

Average. Relative. 

Year. price. price. 

1897 Augurs: extra %-inch 1425 88.6 

1905 Augurs: extra %-inch 3067 190.7 

1897 Axes : M. C. O., Yankee 3938 83.9 

1905 Axes : M. C. O., Yankee 6323 134.7 

1897 Barb wire : galvanized 1.8000 71.3 

1905 Barb wire : galvanized 2.3829 94.3 

1897 Butts : loose joint, cast, 3x3 inch 0306 96.8 

1905 Butts : loose joint, cast, 3x3 inch 0400 126.6 

1897 Doorknobs : steel, bronze plated 1660 97.8 

1905 Doorknobs : steel, bronze plated 3625 213.6 

1897 Files : 8-inch mill bastard 7775 91.2 

1905 Files : 8 inch mill bastard 1.0367 121.6 

1897 Locks : Common Mortise 0750 91.8 

1905 Locks: Common Mortise 1496 183.1 

1897 Nails: wire, 8-penny, fence and common.. 1.4854 68.7 

1905 Nails: wire, 8-penny, fence and common.. 1.8958 87.7 

1897 Wood screws: 1-inch, No. 10, flat head 0850 56.3 

1905 Wood screws : 1 inch, No. 10, flat head 1055 69.9 

1897 Zinc: sheet 4.9400 93.0 

1905 Zinc : sheet 6.8250 128.5 

1897 Brick : common domestic 4.9375 88.8 

1905 Brick : common domestic 8.1042 \ 145.7 

1897 Cement : Rosedale '. .7521 84.8 

1905 Cement : Rosedale 8333 93.9 

1897 Doors: pine 8125 74.3 

1905 Doors : pine 1.8367 163.2 

1897 Lime : common 7188 86.3 

1905 Lime : common 8908 106.9 

1897 Pine : white boards. No. 2 barn 15.8333 92.5 

1905 Pine : white boards. No. 2 barn 24.7500 144.6 

1897 Linseed Oil: raw 3275 72.2 

1905 Linseed Oil : raw 4675 103.1 

1897 Pine : yellow 16.4375 , 89.0 

1905 Pine: yellow 24.9167 134.9 

1897 Shingles : white pine, 18-inch 3.5417 94.6 

1905 Shingles : white pine, 18-inch 3.5000 119.9 

1897 Turpentine : spirits of 2743 82.1 

1905 Turpentine: spirits of 6276 187.7 

1897 Window glass : American, single, firsts, 

6x8 to 10x15 inch 2.1986 102.2 

1905 Window glass : American, single, firsts, 

6x8 to 10x15 inch 2.7637 128.5 

1897 House furnishing goods : Earthenware : 

plates, white granite 3991 89.1 

1905 House furnishing goods : Earthenware : 

plates, white granite. 4586 102.4 

1897 Furniture : bedroom sets ash 8.750 82.9 

1905 Furniture: bedroom sets ash 12.354 117.0 

1897 Furniture : chairs, bedroom, maple 5.000 80.7 

1905 Furniture: chairs, bedroom, maple 8.000 129.1 

1897 Furniture: chairs, kitchen 3.5000 91.5 

1905 Furniture : chairs, kitchen 4.7500 124.2 

1897 Table cutlery : knives and forks, cocobolo 

handles 5.0000 82.5 

1905 Table cutlery : knives and forks, cocobolo 

handles ' 6.6875 110.4 

1897 Woodenware : pails, oak grained 1.2417 95.6 

1905 Woodenware : pails, oak grained. ,..,.... 1.7000 130.9 



STATISTICS ON WAGES. 



231 



MISCELLANEOUS. 

Average. Relative. 

Year. price. price. 

1897 Rope: manila, %-inch 0631 67.6 

1905 Rope: manila, %-inch 1195 127.9 

1897 Starch : laundry 0300 86.2 

1905 Starch : laundry 0329 94.5 

1897 Tobacco : plug, Horseshoe 3758 94.9 

1905 Tohacco : plug. Horseshoe 4900 123.7 

1897 Tobacco: smoking, gran. Seal of N. C 5000 98.2 

1905 Tobacco: smoking, gran. Seal of N. C 6000 117.9 



STATISTICS ON WAGES. 

PRICES AND COST OF LIVING IN THE STATES OF NORTH 
CAROLINA, PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, ALABAMA. 

NORTH CAROLINA— 1904. 
Agriculure. 

95 counties report an increase in cost of living. 

2 counties report no increase. 
81 counties report an increase of wages. 
16 counties report no increase. 

It will thus be seen from this general statement that the in- 
crease of wages in North Carolina has not kept pace with the in- 
creased cost of living. 

MONTHLY FARM WAGES. 

Men receive from $11.07 to $18.86 per month; 
Women receive from $6.16 to $11.54 per month. 
Children average $5.50 per month. 

Miscellaneous factories, exclusive of furniture and textiles. 

203 factories report, of which 199 employ 7,655 persons. 
Time, 10 hours a day. 
Highest wage, $2.09 a day. 
Lowest wage, 84c. a day. 
Average wage, $1.47 a day. 
134 factories report an increase of wages. 

1 factory reports a decrease. 
56 factories report no change. 

Cotton and woolen mills. 



304 mills employing 57,555 persons. 

Time, 10.8 hours the average day's work. 

Highest average wages per day : 

Men $2.13 

Women $1.04 

Lowest average wages per dayV 

Men $1.62 

Women ,...., 49 

Children - m T, , , 41 



232 STATISTICS ON WAGES. 



It will thus be seen that the cotton and woolen mill wages for 
men run from $16.12 to $55.38 per month of 26 days; for women 
from $12.74 to $27.04; for children $10.66. If the time for shut- 
downs in average mill work be deducted it will be seen that the 
wages paid cotton and woolen mill employees do not differ ma- 
terially from the wages of farmhands. 

Furniture factories. 

86 factories report, of which 85 employ 4,847 people. 

Highest average daily wages : 

Adults $2.05 

Lowest average daily wages: 

Adults $ .73 

Children .-. .39 

Trades. 

29% report an increase of wages. 

8% report a decrease of wages. 
63% report no change. 
63% made full time. 
37% made part time. 
85% reported increased cost of living. - 
15% reported no increase. 

When 63% are reported as making full time, this must not be 
understood to be a full year of 313 working days, but full factory 
time from 260 to 290 days. It will also be seen that the increase 
in wages by no means equals the increase in the cost of living. 

Railroad employees. 

Total number reporting 12,788, exclusive of officers. 
Average daily wages: 

Station agents $1.12 

Other station men 82 

Engineers 2.83 

Firemen 1.34 

Conductors 2.40 

Other train men 1.06 

Machinists 2.39 

Carpenters 1.71 

Other shop men 1.13 

Section foremen 1.41 

Other track men 85 

Switchmen 1.13 

Telegraph operators t 1.79 

Other employees 1.20 

The above figures are taken from the 18th Annual Report of the 
Bureau of Labor for the State of North Carolina for the year 
1904: 

OHIO— 1904. 

Manufacturing establishments. 

Employees reported 343,859. 
Male, 290,217. 
Female, 53,642. 
62,537 received an advance of 7.9%. 
4,267 suffered a reduction of 6.5%. 
277,055 reported no change. 



STATISTICS ON WAGES. 233 

Ignoring the very small decrease, the average increase in manu- 
facturing wages for 343,859 employees was but one and five- 
tenths per cent. 

These employees for ten of the leading industries were dis- 
tributed as follows: 

Average 

Description. Number. yearly wages. 

Boilers, engines and tanks 12,480 $556 

Boots and shoes •. 14,543 349 

Clothing 16,358 453 

Flouring mill products 3,012 473 

Foundry and machine shops 30,890 552 

Liquors 4,669 666 

Machinery 21,087 583 

Printing and binding 10,641 471 

Sash, doors, lumber 8,086 ^ 506 

Steel, iron and tin 37,875 635 

From these figures the average daily wages for each of the 
preceding occupations were as follows: 

Boilers, engines and tanks $1.79 

Boots and shoes 1.12 

Clothing 1.46 

Flouring mills 1.52 

Foundry 1.78 

Liquors 2. 14 

Machinery 1.88 

Printing and binding 1.51 

Sash, etc 1.63 

Steel, etc 2.14 

The wages paid to the 159,641 employees of the preceding ten 
leading industries amounted to $86,503,564, or an average yearly 
wage of $541, or an average daily wage of $1.74 for each working 
day in a working year of 310 days. 

And as these leading industries are the highest wage industries, 
it follows that the average daily wage for all the manufacturing 
establishments of Ohio employing 343,859 persons is less than 
$1.50 per day, or less than $9 per week for the working year. 

These figures show the fallacy of calculations based on hourly 
wages. And when Republicans quote a higher daily rate for 
these occupations in Ohio they obtain it by another fallacy. They 
divide the actual amount paid any given number of men by the 
number of days they were actually employed, irrespective of the 
question, whether they were employed all the days in a full work- 
ing year or not. The shutdowns of these manufacturing estab- 
lishments cost each laborer from one to two months of his time, 
which makes his real daily wages much less than the Republican 
party boasts it to be. This is shown more fully in the following 
calculations based on the Ohio report as to its coal miners. 

Coal mining. 

Average number of employees, 36,460. 
Amount paid in wages, $19,113,467. 
Average yearly wages, $496. 
Average daily wages, $1.60. 
Days in operation, 191. 



234 STATISTICS ON WAGES. 

Republicans will quote the average daily wages at $2.60 a day, 
as does the report from which these figures were taken. To ob- 
tain this result 191, the actual number of days worked throughout 
the year, was used as a divisor, instead of 310, the actual number 
of work days in the year. In other words, the operators gave the 
men 191 days' work during the year, which averaged $2.60 a day, 
but when the whole time of the miner is considered his wages 
were but $1.60 a day. This s'ame fallacious method of making a 
higher apparent daily wage rate than can be defended on common 
sense principles is characteristic of Republican statistics. They 
ignore the idle days, not the idle Sundays which all men ignore, 
but the idle days necessitated by the manufacturing trusts in 
their effort to regulate and control the output of the mills. 

Of the 36,460 reported miners, 26,950 are reported as receiving 
an average advance in wages of 12.57%, or about 9% for the en- 
tire 36.460 men. * This advance is attributable solely and alone 
to the coal strike arbitrament. 

These figures are taken from the 28th Annual Report of the 
Bureau of Labor of the State of Ohio for the year 1904. 

PENNSYLVANIA— 1904. 

These statistics are for 84 manufacturing industries of Penn- 
sylvania, in which 734 identical establishments report for every 
year from 1896 to 1904: 

1. Capital invested, 1903 $269,958,813 

Cost of basic material $199,030,954 

Wages paid 99,270,883 

Total 298,301,837 

Profit, 1903 95,146,215 

Profit, per cent 35 

Market value of product 393,448,052 

2. Capital invested, 1896 173,760,089 

Market value of product 172,966,167 

Cost of basic material 83,231,627 

Wages paid 47,530,623 

Total 130,762,250 

Profit, 1896 42,203,917 

Profit, per cent 24 

Increase of profit, per cent., 1903 

over 1896... 45 

3. Wages paid: 

1896—124,563 persons received 47,530,623 

1903— 208,311 persons received 99,270,883 

In 1896 the average daily wage was $1.41 

In 1903 the average daily wage was 1.66 

Increase in daily wages .25 

Increase, per cent. 1903 over 1896. . 17 

Profits in 1896 — 24% — were already outrageously high. In 
1903 they had increased to 35%, or an increase over 1896 of 45%. 

Wages in 1896 — $1.41 per day — were outrageously low. In 1903 
they averaged $1.66, an increase of 17% over 1896. Profits that 
needed no increase advanced 45%, while wages, which sadly 
needed an increase, increased but 17%. That is, profits increased 
45%, while wages increased 17%. This is the meaning of Repub- 
lican prosperity. 



STATISTICS ON WAGES. 235 

And when it is considered that the price of living during the 
same period advanced about 47%, the pitiful condition of the 
laborer who works for wages becomes more apparent. 

4. Days in operation, 734 identical establishments. 

Year. Average days in operation. 

1896 271 

1897 286 

1898 286 

1899 289 

1900 289 

1901 292 

1902 293 

1903 290 

5. Per cent, of wages of value of the product. 

1896 27.5 

1897 26t8 

1898 26.4 

1899 24.7 

1900 23.8 

1901 24.3 

1902 24.1 

1903 25.2 

That is to say, the laborers received 2.3% less of the value of 
the product in 1903 than they received in 1896. The value of the 
product in 1903 was $393,448,052, and 2.3% of this amounts to 
$9,049,305. By all tests of fairness this $9,049,305 should have 
gene to the workmen as an increase of wages, if the Republican 
claim of greater prosperity in 1903 be correct. If in the hard 
times of 1896 27.5% of the value of the product was paid as 
wages, the same amount, or a greater amount should have been 
paid in 1903 to give the claim of greater prosperity a sound basis 
in fairness and logic. And in all fairness this amount — $9,049,- 
305 — should have been added to the wage fund of the workmen. 
The increased profits of 1903 over 1896 — 45% — would certainly 
stand this decrease of 2.3%, and would not entail any hardships 
upon the employers. Distributing this $9,049,305 between the 
206,311 workmen employed in the 734 identical establishments in 
1903 would have given each one of them an increase of $43.80, 
and would have made the average annual wages within three 
cents of $525. This, by adopting the Republican method of cal- 
culating an increased daily wage, would have given each work- 
man a dollar and eighty-one cents per day as against a dollar 
and sixty-six cents actually received. And the better method of 
calculating daily wages would have made the difference some- 
what more. 

While this single instance of an unfair method of swelling 
manufacturers' profits is adduced, it is not therefore claimed that 
it is the only instance of the kind. It is used because it is con- 
crete, deducible from the figures of the Pennsylvania Report, and 
easily available. 

6. Iron, steel and tin-plate production, being the production ot 
pig iron steel, rolled iron and steel and tin-plate. 



236 STATISTICS ON WAGES, 



PIG IRON. 

Capital invested $162,662,941 

Gross tons of production 8,181,652 

Realized value , 131,775,613 

Value of basic material $63,889,439 

Aggregate wages 10,662,196 

Total wages and material 74,551,635 

Total gross profit 57,223,988 

Per cent, of gross profit more than .... 35 

In other words, the industry of iron and steel in Pennsylvania 
in 1903 paid a gross profit of 35% over the total value of the basic 
material and the aggregate wages paid. 

The realized value of the product, $131,775,613, when compared 
with the aggregate wages paid, $10,662,196, shows that the work- 
men received but a trifle more than 8% of the realized value of 
the product. When it is considered that for the whole 734 iden- 
tical establishments $99,270,883 were paid in wages upon a 
realized value of $393,448,052, or 25.2%, the miserable proportion, 
8%, paid workmen in pig iron is evident. 

Average number of days in operation 307 

Number of workmen employed 16,912 

Average yearly earnings $630.00 

Average daily wages 2.05 

Cost of labor per ton 1.33 

Tonnage per man per day 1.57 

It will be observed that in the preceding calculation the gross 
profits is taken as the excess of realized value over value of basic 
materials and total wages paid. There is, of course, an additional 
miscellaneous expense, but this is so small as not to vary results 
materially. 

The Census of 1900 enables us to reach this conclusion. 

Census Figures of 1900 for Pig Iron. 

Realized value of products in United States $206,823,000 

Basic material $131,536,000 

Total wages. 18,500,000 

Miscellaneous 7,463,000 157,499,000 



Total profits $49,324,000 

Profit per cent 31 

Pennsylvania in 1900. 

Realized value $101,575,000 

Basic material $64,095,000 

Total wages 8,038,000 

Miscellaneous 3,269,000 75,402,000 



Total profit $26,173,000 

Profit per cent 34 

The calculation ignoring miscellaneous expense yielded a profit 
per cent, of 35; the calculation by considering miscellaneous ex- 
pense yields a profit per cent, of 34. . The difference is so slight 
as not to affect the general result. 



8TATI8TIG8 ON WA0E8. 237 

The realized value in 1903, as shown by the State Report, was 
$131,775,613, and the total production, 8,181,652 tons of pig iron. 
This made the average selling price of pig iron in Pennsylvania 
for that year $16.47 per ton. 

The Census of 1900 gives the following average price per ton 
for the different states as follows: 

Illinois $10.23 Kentucky $16.84 

Maryland 12.69 Michigan 16.46 

New Jersey 16.81 New York 15.07 

Ohio 15.71 Pennsylvania 14.98 

Tennessee 12.54 Texas 17.62 

Virginia 15.20 West Virginia 16.57 

Wisconsin 13.34 Other States 16.33 

The lowest average price is that of Illinois, and the Census 
authorities explain this by saying that "a large part of the pig 
iron made in this state is consumed by the makers in the manu- 
facture of steel." 

That is to say, they, as pig iron manufacturers, sell their prod- 
ucts to themselves, as steel manufacturers, at $10.22 a ton. The 
average price of pig iron for the whole country was $14.29 per 
ton in 1900. This would give the steel manufacturers of Illinois, 
who were at the same time pig iron manufacturers, an advantage 
of $4.06 per ton, or nearly 40% upon their steel products. If the 
comparison could be made with actual prices this percentage of 
advantage would doubtless be materially increased. It will also 
be noticed that the labor cost of the manufacture of pig iron is 
about 16% of the cost of basic material, and not quite 8% of the 
realized value of the product. 

In all these calculations the term "miscellaneous expenses" 
covers taxes, rent, interest, insurance, advertising, stamps, con- 
tract work and other similar expenses; the term "basic ma- 
terials" covers raw materials, partly manufactured materials, 
fuel, rent of power and heat, cost of mill supplies and freight. 

Falling Off of Production of Rolled Iron and Steel in 1904 as 
Compared with 1903. 

Production 1903. Production 1904. 

Articles. Gross tons. Gross tons. 

Iron and steel rails 1,125,751 825,434 

Plates and sheets 1,689,824 1,565,190 

Cut nails 33,509 28,162 

Falling off in Wages Paid. 

Aggregate wages, 1903 $64,664,647 

Aggregate wages, 1904 55,932,427 

Falling off in Wage Earners. 

Workmen, 1903 99,294 

Workmen, 1904 91,146 

Falling of in Annual Wages. 

Yearly wages, 1903 $651.24 

Yearly wages, 1904 613.66 



238 STATISTICS ON WAGES. 

Falling off in Average Daily Wages. 

Daily wages, 1903 $2.25 

Daily wages, 1904 2.09 

Falling off in Labor Cost, per ton. 

Labor cost, 1903 (per ton) $7.97 

Labor cost, 1904 (per ton) 7.19 

In the production of crude steel the same decrease of produc- 
tion is reported. 

1903. 1904. 

Articles. Tons. Tons. 

Bessemer 3,910,059 3,465,669 

Open Hearth 4,264,410 4,093,100 

Crucible 72,908 55,023 

Total 8,247,377 7,613,792 

A falling off of 633,585 tons. 

The same reduction is shown in pig iron. 

Gross tons produced, 1903 8,181,652 

Gross tons produced, 1904 , 7,411,300 

Value per ton, 1903 $16.11 

Value per ton, 1904 , 13.74 

Cost of basic material, 1903 ' $63,889,439 

Cost of basic material, 1904 $54,664,808 

Number of workmen, 1903 16,912 

Niuuber of workmen, 1904 14,087 

Aggregate wages, 1903 $10,662,196 

Aggregate wages, 1904 7,909,335 

Average yearly earnings, 1903 630.45 

Average yearly earnings, 1904 561.46 

Average daily wage, 1903 2.05 

Average daily wage, 1904 1.98 

Average cost of labor per ton, 1903 1.33 

Average cost of labor per ton, 1904 1.07 

Average cost of basic material per ton, 1903. . . . 7.81 

Average cost of basic material per ton, 1904. . . . 7.38 

It will thus be seen that the basic material and the labor cost 
of every ton of pig iron produced in Pennsylvania in 1904 was 
$8.45. As the realized value of each ton was $13.74, the profit, 
excluding miscellaneous expenses, was $5.29 per ton, or 38%. 

ANTHEACITE COAL. 

Total tonnage mined 58,057,447 

Total value on board cars $140,370,498.00 

Average number of days 231 

Average number of people employed 160,579 

Average yearly earnings $574.28 

Average daily wage, for 231 days 2.48 

Average daily wage, for 313 days 1.83 

Average number of tons mined by each miner per day. 6.5 

BITUMINOUS COAL. 

Total number of tons mined 58,175,108 

Realized value at mines $59,603,146.00 

Days in operation 188 

Average number of workmen 93,114 

Aggregate wages paid $40,133,604.00 

Average yearly wage 431.02 

Average daily wage for 188 days 2.29 

Average daily wage for 313 days 1.37 



STATISTICS ON WAGES. 239 

TEXTILE INDUSTRIES. 

Total value of product $105,879,546.00 

Average number of employees 54,011 

Number of days in operation 284 

Aggregate wages paid $24,541,029.00 

Average yearly M^age 383.39 

Average daily wage, for 284 days 1.36 

COTTON GOODS. 

Total value of product $17,457,423.00 

Days in operation 286 

Average number of employees 10,681 

Aggregate wages paid '. $4,430,642.00 

Average yearly wage 414.82 

Average daily wage, for 286 days 1.45 

WOOLEN GOODS. 

Value of product $44,054,932.00 

Days in operation 292 

Number of employees 22,160 

Wages paid $8,819,725.00 

Average yearly wage 398.00 

Average daily wage, for 292 days 1.36 

SILK GOODS. 

Number of employees 3,687 

Average yearly wage • $378.15 

Average daily wage 1.34 

KNIT GOODS. 

Number of employees 13,605 

Average yearly wage $321.27 

Average daily wage 1.14 

FIBER GOODS. 

Average yearly wage $385.98 

Average daily wage 1.37 

CARPETS. 

Average daily wage $1.54 

WOOLEN AND WORSTED. 

Average daily wage $1.14 

These figures as to Pennsylvania are taken from the Annual 
Report of the Secretary of Internal Affairs, part three, 1904. 



ALABAMA. 

Census Report, Bulletin 43, 1905. 

1312 manufacturing establishments in the eleven selected in- 
dustries — cars, coke, cotton goods, fertilizers, foundries, iron and 
steel, lumber, planing mills, cotton seed oil, printing, turpentine 



240 STATISTICS ON WAGES. 

and rosin — forming 70% of all establishments in the state, re- 
ported as follows for the year 1905 : 

Capital employed $90,106,030.00 

Value of products 93,953,829 . 00 

Number of wage earners 54,073 

Wages paid 19,283,768 . 00 

Average annual wages 357 . 00 

Average daily wage, 313 days 1.14 

Miscellaneous expenses 6,705,400 . 00 

Cost of basic materials 52,256,700 . 00 

Profit , 15,707,961.00 

Profit, per cent 17 

lEON AND STEEL. 

Twenty establishments with capital $29,044,289 . 00 

Value of product 24,687,359 . 00 

Number of employees 8,590 

Aggregate wages paid - 3,447,889 . 00 

Average annual wages 401 . 00 

Average daily wages, 313 days 1 . 28 

COTTON GOODS. 

Forty-six establishments with capital $24,758,649.00 

Value of product 16,760,332.00 

Number of employees 1 1,480 

Aggregate wages paid 2,457,928 . 00 

Average annual wages, 313 days 214 . 00 

Average daily wages, 313 days .68 

UNITED STATES OFFICIAL WAGE FIGURES. 

Comparison of the wages of labor as shown by the Nineteenth 
Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor of the Department 
of Commerce and Labor for 1904: 

Laborers. Wages per hour Wages per hour 

1896. 1903. 

(In cents and fractions.) 

Blacksmiths 21.54 23.64 

Grinders, plow 19.20 21.90 

Cutters, boots and shoes 21.78 23.36 

Stitchers, boots and shoes 30.09 31.50 

Vampers, boots and shoes 19 . 48 21 . 1(J 

Grinders, boots and shoes 15 . 25 15 . 25 

Mixers, boots and shoes 16.13 16 . 42 

Shoemakers, female 12.60 13.34 

Tone regulators 33.59 36.11 

Mullers, cotton seed 6 . 00 6.25 

Linters, cotton seed 10.26 10.78 

Pressers, cotton seed 12 . 87 12 . 83 

Laborers, linseed oil 15 . 00 16 . 00 

Pressmen, linseed oil 16.22 17.43 

Rollermen, linseed oil 22.18 18.00 

Bleachers, paper and wood pulp 15 . 27 16 . 83 

Calendrers, paper and wood pulp 13 . 87 12.51 

Cutters, paper and wood pulp 8 . 88 9.77 

Finishers, paper and wood pulp 10.48 10.84 

Rag sorters, paper and wood pulp 17 . 11 17 . 89 

Rag sorters, female, paper and wood pulp. 9.29 9.04 

Pipefitters, petroleum. 23.58 23.73 

Kilnmen, pottery 27.01 28.29 



STATISTICS ON WAGES. 241 



Laborers. Wages per hour Wages per hour 

1896. 1903. 

(In cents and fractions.) 

Sewers, books, female 10.71 10.15 

Linotype operators 33.51 26 . 93 

Finishers, rope and twine 8.00 8.00 

Hemp preparers 17.33 16.71 

Laborers 14.29 14.33 

Layers 14.00 14.00 

Ropemakers 17 .78 18.70 

Spinners 13.69 12.62 

Twisters 13.00 13.00 

Blacksmiths, shipbuilding 28.24 28.48 

Boilermakers, shipbuilding 26 . 33 25 . 68 

Laborers, shipbuilding 17 . 02 18 . 55 

Riggers, shipbuilding 26.05 25.33 

Riveters, shipbuilding 25.34 25.31 

Sparmakers, shipbuilding 33 . 07 34 . 66 

Beamers, shipbuilding 18.33 18.19 

Loom fixers, silk goods 29.05 29.70 

Quillers, silk goods 10.07 9.89 

Spinners, silk goods 7.80 7 . 95 

TAvisters in silk goods 25.01 26 . 14 

Warpers, female, silk goods 19. 16 15.69 

Weavers, male, silk goods 18 . 89 16 . 02 

Weavers, female, silk goods . . 17 . 56 15 . 34 

Weavers, ribbon, silk goods 24.25 20.61 

Weavers, ribbon, female, silk goods 23.21 20.89 

Gutters, hog... 31.54 31.28 

Meade'rs, hog 26.25 28.17 

Scrapers, hog 27 . 63 25 . 23 

Cutters, soap 16.37 17.50 

Holders, soap 16.88 17.71 

Coopers, sugar refining 1 1 . 44 11.79 

Filtermen, sugar refining 11.37 11 . 58 

Firemen, sugar refining 16.37 19.03 

Laborers, sugar refining 15.37 15.51 

Water tenders, sugar refining 19. 96 18.63 

Weighers, sugar refining 19.31 21. 11 

Assorters, tin plate 25 . 00 25 . 00 

Dusters, tin plate 8.33 8 . 82 

Laborers, tin plate 15.84 15.36 

Cigarette machine feeders 7 . 50 7 . 47 

Cigarette machine feeders, female 10.48 10.48 

Cigarette machine operators 13.97 15.72 

Packers, cigars 15 . 42 12 . 99 

Stemmers, female 7.32 8 . 56 

Casers 14.22 13.12 

Granulators 9 . 00 8.3? 

Sorters 15.81 15.16 

Combers, woolens 10 . 23 10 . 95 

Dyers, woolens 12.16 13 . 55 

Clampers, paper boxes, male ^. .. .20.34 20.34 

Clampers, paper boxes, female 13.56 13.56 

Gluers, paper boxes, female 14.38 14. 9& 

Limers, paper boxes, male 13 . 56 13 , 56 

Paper cutters 27 . 27 25 . 55 

Scorers ^ 23 . 84 25 . 99 

Trimmers 8.53 9 . 43 

Off bearers, brick 15 . 05 17 . 98 

Lathers 35 . 84 37 . 59 

Roofers 23.31 26.13 

Buttermakers 14 . 88 15 . 34 

Cheesemakers 16 . 29 17 . 50 

Candymakers 23 . 84 23 . 77 

Burlers, carpets 13 . 24 15.91 



242 STATISTICS ON WAGES. 

Laborers. Wages per hour Wages per hour 

1896. 1903. 

(In cents and fractions.) 

Dyers, carpets 14.85 15 . 45 

Loom fixers 24.53 26.50 

Spoolers 1 1 . 30 1 1 . 97 

Twisters 9.74 10.49 

Weavers 13.31 14.07 

Weavers, ingrain 17.41 18 . 40 

Blacksmiths, carriage and wagon 23 . 40 24 . 49 

Bodymakers 23.61 25.01 

Machine wood workers 18 . 20 19 . 64 

Painters 21.09 22.89 

Blacksmiths, steam railroad cars 25 . 65 27 . 80 

Coppersmiths, steam railroad cars 27 . 95 28 . 87 

Laborers, steam railroad cars 12.79 13 . 62 

Pipe fitters, steam railroad cars 23.80 25 . 53 

Cutters, clothing 24.33 26. 16 

Examiners, clothing 13 . 34 1 1 . 48 

Finishers, clothing 8 . 85 8.84 

Pressers, clothing. 7 .38 7 . 66 

Sewing machine operators 8.25 9 . 25 

Bushelmen 11.67 12.71 

Meaters, cooperage 20 . 65 19 . 42 

Levelers, cooperage 29 . 53 25 . 08 

Raisers, cooperage 26.05 24.24 

Carding machine tenders "^ .... 9 . 28 9 . 92 

Dyers 10.63 11.81 

Bleachers 11.84 12.03 

Calendrers .13.22 13.97 

Color mixers 12 . 25 12 . 85 

Dyers, male 13 . 83 14 . 62 

Printers 46.12 46.14 

Bolters, flour 16.37 17. 

Boilermakers 26 . 26 28 

Coremakers 9 . 84 8 , 

Canners 17 . 50 17 . 

Canners, female 1 1 . 66 11, 

Gas, chargers 24 . 75 25 , 

Gas, laborers 16.10 

Pipefitters 24 . 80 

Retort men 23.28 

Batchmakers, glass 19 . 40 

Flangers, hats 32 . 44 

Pouncers, hats 25 . 00 

Trimmers, hats 13 . 76 

Millers, liquors 23 . 27 

Warehouse men 18.19 

Yeast makers 65.29 

Coopers, liquors 24 . 15 

Action makers, organs 23 . 63 

Case makers, organs 20 . 34 

Pipe makers, organs 29.72 

Pipe organ builders ' 30 . 66 

Tuners 30.69 

Voicers 41.83 



These figures carefully gathered by the Government show that f 
the actual wage scale per hour for hundreds of thousands of 
laborers show an actual decrease in 1903 over 1896; the cases in 
which an increase is shown, while not reaching an average of a 
10 per cent, advance, may be attributable more to the adoption of 
the eight hour system than to any other principle; the daily wages 
may remain the same in both years, while the hourly wages show 



STATISTICS ON WAGES. 243 

a slight advance. The saving to the laborer is merely that of an 
hour or two hour's time. Many other occupations are set out in 
full in the report of the Bureau of Labor, which are not repro- 
duced here, and which show a much greater increase in hourly 
wages. An analysis of these advances show them to be in those 
occupations most clearly dominated by trades unionism, and the 
reason for these greater advances is attributable in no sense to 
the tariff, nor to the savings which follow the concentration of 
industries. Indeed, an analysis of the profits made by these 
concentrations or trusts, show that a much larger percentage of 
the value of the products might have been devoted to the wage 
fund without injury to a single industry. In other words profits 
are too high, owing to the tariff and the trusts; wages, on the 
contrary, at their highest, are too low in comparison with these 
profits; and at their average, these wages are unconscionably low; 
and at their lowest, these same wages, not only defraud their 
recipients of a fair living, but convict the trusts and the tariff of 
fastening upon American labor the pauper wage scales of Europe. 



APPENDICES 



APPENDIX A. 



COMPARISON OF EXPORT AND HOME PRICES. 

The first and second table is taken from the American Export 
Monthly of June 18, 1904, published by Arkell and Douglas, 5 to 
11 Broadway, New York City, New York. 

First Table. — Showing differences in discounts from price lists for for- 
eign and home consumers and the per cent, of difference between export 
and home prices; many varieties and sizes are often included under one 
discount. 

Note. — Where several discounts are quoted ,the first figure is the dis- 
count from list price, the second figure is the discount from the remainder, 
the third figure is the discount from that remainder, and so on. Thus, in 
the line for "Augers" below, the home discount is given as "50, 10, 5." If 
the list price was $1 these discounts would mean 50 per cent. ofE from $1 
(50 cents), less 10 per cent, of remainder (5 cents), less 5 per cent, of 
that remainder (2% cents), leaving 42% cents as net price to buyer. 



Firm or corporation and article. 



Export dis- 
count from 
list. 



Home dis- | Dif- 

countfroml fer- 

list. I ence. 



Russell & Erwin Manufacturing Co. : 

Auger bits, Swan's Jennings 

Locks, door 

Bells, cow 

SneL Manufacturing Co. : 

Augers 

John S. Fray & Oo. : 

Braces 

Enterprise Manufacturing Co. : 

Coffee and spice mills 

A. M. Hayden & Russell, Burdsall & Ward 
Bolt and Nut Co. : . 

Bolts, tire 

Bolts, carriage 

Bridgeport Chain Co. : 

Chains, halter. 

Covert Manufacturing Co. : 

Halters, jute 

Halters, sisal 

Handles, fork, rake, hoe and shovel . . 
Beamis «& Call Hardware Co. : 

Pipe wrenches, adjustable "S". 

Pike Manufacturing Co. : 

Scythe and oil stones 

Henry Dis,ston's Sons : 

Saws, hand 

Saws, crosscut 

Stanley Rule and Level Co. : 

Rules, boxwood 



Per cent. 
60 
50 
50,15 

75 

70 

40,10] 



I Per cent. 
50 
40 
50 

50, 10, 5 

60 

25 to 30 



80,10 
80, 10 

70, 10, 7 

50, 10, 10 

40,10 

50 

50 

50 

40 and 5 
60 and 10 



72,10 
75 

60,10 

40, 5, 5 
30 
45 

40 

33 

25 

45 



50,10, 10, 10|60to60, 10 



P.ct. 
25 
20 
19 

72 

33 

30 



28 
39 

44 

33 
30 
10 

20 

50 

43 
53 

35 



APPENDICES. 



245 



Second Table. 



-Showing difference tetween ewport and home prices on 
sample specified articles. 





Export 


Home 


Differ- 


Firm or corporation and article. 


price. 


price. 


ence. 


Russell & Erwin Manufacturing Co. : | 


1 




Per. ct. 


Auger bits, Swan's Jenning No. 3, dozen 


$1.60 


$2.00 


25 


Snell Manufacturing Co. : 








Auger bits, solid cast steel car No. 7, dozen.. 


2.70 


3.60 


33 


A. & M. Haydou: 








Bolts, tire 1-inch, per hundred 


.27 


.30 


10 


Bolts, carriage, 2-inch, per hundred 


.98 


1.35 


34 


John S. Fray & Co. : 








Braces, Spofiford No. 7, per dozen 


4.80 


6.40 


30 


Braces, Woodhead No. 117, per dozen 


10.80 


14.40 


30 


Braces, ratchet No. 141, per dozen 


12.60 


16.80 


30 


Enterprise Manufacturing Co. : 








r"nfFpf» fl'id smVp mills 'wnll AJiph . . . 


67 


.88 


30 


Coffee and epice mills, counter, No. 4, each.. 


4.32 


5.60 


30 


Coffee and spice mills, counter, No. 212, each. 


16.20 


21.00 


30 


Bridgeport Chain Co. : 








Chains, halter. Brown, No. 4, 6 foot, dozen. . . . 


2.00 


2.80 


40 


Beamis &, Call Hardware Co. : 








Wrenches, "S," adjustable pipe, 8 inches, doz. 


7.50 


9.00 


20 


Do 


4.50 
13.75 


5.55 
14.25 


22 


Wrenches, combination, 10 inches, dozen 


6 



[List from Exporters and Importers' Journal of June 18, 1904, published 
by Henry W. Peabody, 17 State street. New York City, N. Y.] 

First Table. — Shotting differences in discounts. 



Firm or corporation and article. 



Home dis- | Dif- 
I count from I fer- 
list. ence. 



Henry Disston's Sons : 

Levels and plumbs 

Saws, band 

Saws, hand 

Saws, compass 

Shears 

Squares, try 

Andrew B. Hendrix & Co. : 

Bird cages, brass 

Enterprise Manufacturing Ca : 

Fruit seeders, Nos. 36 and 38 
Collins & Co. : 

Hinges, japanned spring 

Hinges, acme brass 

Springs, door, gem coil 

Covert Manufiacturing Co. : 

Harness snaps 

Breast chains 

Cleveland Twist Drill Co. : 

Bit stocks and drills 

Boston and Lockport Block Co. : 

Tackle blocks 

Charles Parker Co. : 

Miller's Falls ' Co . : 

Wrenches, Coes 



Per cent. I 


70,10 


10 


10 


60 


10 


10 




45 


5 




45 


5 
50 


70, 10 


10 


10 
50 
40 


25, 


20, 


10 




40, 


10 
35 

50 




50, 


10 




65, 


10 

75 


25, 10, sl 



Per cent. I P. ct. 



40, 10, 5, 5, 7 



70 
60 
25 
25 
30 
70 

40,10 

30 

25,10 
30 
30 

35 
40 

60, 10, 5 

70, 10 

25 

40, 5, 5, 7 



36 
23 
43 
43 
40 
36 

8 

16 

24 
30 
16 

42 
30 



17 
13 



246 



APPENDICES. 



Second Table.- 



-Showing samples of differences hetween export and home 
prices in specific articles. 



Firm or corporation and article. 



Export 
price. 


Home 
price. 


$15.00 


$16.20 


1.00 

.75 

6.00 

11.51 

6.37 


1.22 

.92 

8.36 

16.50 

8.40 


2.61 
6.00 
7.00 
6.00 
1.06 
10.00 
1.00 
4.60 


3.65 
8.36 

8.70 
7.80 
1.43 
12.95 
1.25 
6.30 


10.00 


14.00 


4.68 
4.95 
4.81 


5.10 
5.40 
5.25 


.75 
1.08 
7.80 


.98 
1.40 
8.40 


1.75 
2.63 


2.00 
2.83 


5.46 


5.86 


.48 


.53 


1.80 
7.20 


2.40 
9.00 


3.20 
2.39 
1.84 
2.40 
5.00 
6.40 
7.60 
18.00 


4.25 
3.00 
2.63 
3.12 

6.88 

8.80 

10.45 

i 23.95 


.24 
.20 


.33 

.28 


1.00 
I 1.50 
I 2.00 

1 2.30 

1 


1.10 

1.65 

2.20 

1 2.53 


1 8.86 
.94 


10.13 
1.08 


I 15.40 
1 1.44 

I 2.88 


19.20 

1.80 

1 3.60 


1 6.40 
1 2.25 


8.00 
3.00 


.70 

1 .90 

1 2.20 

1.25 


.80 

.98 

1 2.70 

2.00 


I 1.08 


1.20 



Andrew B. Hendrix Co. : 

Bird cages, No. 301, fancy, with R. mats, doz. 
Henry Disston's Sons : 

Hardware, saws, band, 3 to 14, per foot .... 

Hardware, saws, band, 2 to 3, per foot. . . . 

Hardware, saws, band, 18 inches, per dozen. . 

Hardware, saws, hand. Acme, 16 in., per doz. 

Hardware, saws, hand. No. 7, 14 in., per doz. 

Hardlware, saws, compass. No. 2, 16 inches, 
per dozen 

Hardware, saws, bacls. No. 4, 12 in., per doz. 

Hardware, saws, butclier, No. 7, 18 in., per doz. 

Hardware, saws, wood, No. 69, per doz 

Hardware, trysquare. No. 1, 5 in., per doz.... 

Hardware, trowels, No. 12, per doz 

Hardware, bunghole borers, No. 2, each 

Hardware, levels and plumbs. No. 8, per doz.. 
Smith & Bgge Manufacturing Co. : 

Hardware, shears. Eureka, No. 2 

Ames Manufacturing Co. : 

Hardware, shovels, spades, D. H., sq. pt., doz. . 

Hard'ware, shovels, spades, R. D., sq. pt., doz'. . 

Hardware, shovels, spades, long H., sq. pt., doz 
Columbian Hardware Co. : 

Hardware, hinges. Acme, 2 I., No. 2, doz. pairs. 

Hardware, hinges. Acme, W. B., No. 2, doz. pairs 

Hardware, hinges, door springs, Gem coil, gross. 
Boston & Lockport Block Co. : 

Hardware, tackle block,14 in., single, each 

Hardware, tackle block, 14 in., double, each 

Collins & Co. : 

Hardware, wrenches, Coes, 10 in., per d:oz.... 
L. S. Starrett Co.: 

Hardware, hack-saw blades, 9 in., per doz.... 
Enterprise Manufacturing Co. : 

Fruit presses. No. 3, each 

Rtaisin seeder. No. 36, per doz. . 

Covert Manufacturing Co. : 

Hardware, snaps, har. Derby, gross 

Hardware, snaps, har. .Jockey, gross 

Hardware, snaps, hiar. Trojan, gross 

Hardware, snaps, bar. Yankee, gross 

Hardware, .lacks, carriage, per doz 

Hardware, jacks, wagon, per doz 

Hardware, jacks, automobile, per doz 

Hardware, jacks, automobile, screw, per doz. . 
Sampson Cordage Works : 

Hardware, sash cord. No. 7, per pound 

Hardware, sash cord, Mass., per pound 

M. S. Benedict Manufacturing Co. : 

Hardware, teaspoons, grqss 

Hardware, dessert spoons, gross 

Hardware, tablespoons, gross 

Hardiware, forks, gross 

Cleveland Twist Drill Co. : 

Hardware, twist drill, bit stock, 1 in., per doz. 

Hardware, twist drill, taper sh., 1 in., each.. 
Charles Parker Co. : 

Hardware, vises. No. 5, X, each 

Hardware, coffee mills, box. No. 401, per doz. . 

Hardware, coffee mills, side. No. 90, per doz.. 
Columbian Hardware Co. : 

Hardware, vises, solid: box. No. 90. each . . . . 

Hardware, vises, parallel, 5 in., each 

Malin & Co. : 

Hardware, wire ann. tin, 1-lb. spools, per doz. . 

Hardware, wire ann. tin, 1-lb. spools, per doz. . 

Hardware, wire, barb pr. bd., lbs 

Hardware, wire, black fencing, p. hd., lbs. . . . 
Geo. W. Korn Razor Manufacturing Co. : 

Razors, safety, each 



APPENDICES. 



247 



[List from the Export World and Herald of July 5, 1904, published by 
the American Trading Company, Broad Exchange Building, New York 
City, N. Y.] 

FIRST TABLE. 



'irm or corporation and article. 



[Export dis- 
1 count 
I from list. 



Home dis- 


Dif- 


count 


fer- 


1 from list. 


ence. 


1 Per cent. 


Per ct. 


50 


11 


50,10 


6 


16 


33 


40 


33 


40 


20 



C. Atkins & Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 

Hardware, siaw (circular) 

Hardware, saw (band) 

Hardware, saw (crosscut) 

Hardware, siaw (hand) 

Hardware, saw (back) 



Per cent. 
50, 10 

50, 10, 5 

35, 5 

50, 10 

50 





Export 


Home 


Dif^er- 




price. 


price. 1 ence. 


1 


1 


1 Per. ct. 


J. S. Barron & Co. : 








Freezers, ice cream, Alaska, 4-quart, each.... 


$1.82 


$2.40 


33 


Washboards, single zinc, per dozen 


1.50 
2.25 


2.40 
2.65 


60 


Washboards, solid zinc, per dozen 


17 


Washboards, solid zinc, per dozen 


2.40 


3.00 


25 


[lenry Chesney Hammer Co. : 








Hammers, farriers' No. 54, per dozen 


4.44 


4.80 


9 


Hammers, machinists'. No. 91, per dozen 


7.00 


8.51 


20 


Knowles Scale Works : 








Scales, square pLatform, with wh., each 


14.97 


17.50 


17 



In February, 1904, the literary bureau of the Democratic Congressional 
Committee received a letter from Henry Rossell & Co. (Limited), Sheflfield, 
England, large manufacturers and dealers in files and tool steel. This 
letter says : 

"As an illustration of the unfair manner in which home buyers of 
files are treated by the United States majiufacturers, I inclose you here- 
with a comparison of the prices charged to the buyers in the United 
States with those offered by the same manufacturers here." 

Some of the prices on the list inclosed follow : 

Comparative prices, per dozen, of Amerioan files in America and England. 



Article. 



Eng- 
land. 



I United 
I States. 



Differ- 
ence. 



Flat bastard, ' 4 inches 

Flat bastard, 6 inches 

Flat bastard, 10 inches 

Hand bastard:, 4 inches... 
Hand bastard, 6 inches... 
Hand bastard, 10 inches. . . 
Half-round bastard, 4 inches 
Half-round bastard, 6 inches 
Hialf-round bastard, 10 inches 
Round bastard, 4 inches .... 
Round bastard, 6 inches .... 
Round bastard, 10 inches .... 
Square bastard, 4 inches... 
Square bastard, 6 inches . . . 
Square bastard, 10 inches. . . 



$0.34 


$0.92 


.50 


1.07 


1.08 


1.75 


.38 


.92 


.62 


1.07 


1.30 


1.87 


.34 


1.20 


.50 


1.52 


1.08 


2.27 


.34 


.75 


.50 


.87 


1.08 


1.40 


.34 


.95 


.50 


1.15 


1.08 


1.85 



Per ct. 

170 

114 

62 

142 

73 

44 

253 

204 

108 

121 

74 

30 

179 

130 

71 



From these figures we see that the American File Association, which 
has not revised its price list to American buyers since November 1, 1899, 
is charging us for most kinds of its small files more than twice las much 
as it charges Englishmen for these same files, and for half-round files we 
must pay them three times the price charged Englishmen. 



248 



APPENDICES. 



g05 



^ - §.| 

DC M 1^ 

^ O v+* 

i ^P 

. a> *^ «3 
h ^ ^^ 

UJ ° '=o 

EC ^ ^f 

Q. ^ 1^ 

S S -^ 
° 111 



I 



K> or, 



a u^ 



is 





1 © • 


IS® 




tH 


H 


T-l 


o 


CO 




coo ■* 


00O5t- 










OS 


t-rH 


00 


t-os 


O 0005 Th 


■*(NO 






CO 


O5C0 


OJ 


T-icO 


rH* rHlO CO 


rndrH 




iH 




iH 


CO(N 


(N 


wo 


O OrH CO 


O^IO 


2 

a 


r 




tH 


iHrH 


rH 


<NrH 


(N rHrH rH 


rHrHrH 




CO(N' 


"co 


COCO 
COO 


\a 


OOlO 


TtH rH05 CO- 


(N05 


< 


(MCO 


rM 


OO 


rH-<*< 


lO 05(N kO 


(NTJHTtH 


iOCO 

d 


»o 


Otj^ 


rH 


COO 


O Tt^O (N 


C<j(N(N 






















o 




"^ 


OX 


t- 


O05 


05 OOO 00 


b-COlO 




CO 




CO 


IOt- 


"* 


00 CO 


O tH05 ■* 


rJHCOt- 


05 


rt^' 






l>CD 


CD 


^d 


00 r>iN d 


<6r^ci 


<iJ 


-* 






0(N 


Ttl 


COrH 


rH rHOO CO 


C0OI> 


+3 


(M 






OOO 


00 


O 


rHCO CO 


C0O5(N 














p 


ci 




d ' ■ 


COCO 


(N 


rH 


ci co" 


cccSo^ 


fi 


(N 




CO 


CO 






<N 


t-05 


^ 














i-t 




OO 


~o 


OO 


o 


OO 


O OO o 


OOO 

qoo 




©O 


o 


OO 


o 


OO 


O OO o 


m 


tHCO 


c 


cdoc 


CO 


cod 


05 lOCO rH 


O51O05 


cu 


iHOO 


(N 


(NO 


cr. 


<NrH 


rHrH ■<*( 


(N(NO 


3 


TtKM 


(N 


CD^T-- 


T- 


■* 


rHCO^ ■* 


l>(N»0_ 


















"eS 


Oi 




cc 


co'cc 


iN 




CT (N 


kOCOrH 


t> 


tH 




(N 


(N 






7-1. 


t-CO 


€^ 














rH 




OOO 


"^ 


0-* 


OC 


OO 


O rHO t- 


0050 


i 


(NO 


a 


oco 


(N 


OO 


O <NO CO 


WCDC^ 


'^'CO 




OiN 


O 


r-irH 


CO -^'rH lO 


05(Nod 


.t^ 


I-IO 




\a\c 


cc 


CO(N 


CO COO rH 


l>TtH05 


+3 


OOO 




rMCC 


OC 


CO^(N 


rH (N<N lO 


U3TtH(N 




















b-"^ 






o't- 




rH 


co" <£ 


(Nko'cD 


CO 




u: 


CO 






CO 


05 CO 








CO 






CD 


1>(N 




; 


•^f 










I'd 


-o 


: : 


-J • O 




• 


•IN 














o 


<t-l o 




fl 


I'd 










: a> 


<1> 


• a 


d <v ci 


O 




a 


c 

J 


e 
c 

t- 


its 111 


o 1 


Pi 




> LOC 






"pig.a 

(NlCiO 








cc 


5 »r 


5 Cv 


00-* 


kOCO CO 


(NCOCO 




1 


o 

O 


1 

a 






1 
E 






.a :« ;>. 


••<H • fr, >fa 




1 

E 

Pi 


-t- 

a 

;- 
c 
£ 

c 






bj 
C 

is 
'i 

c 
c 

1 





CO 

a 

O 


sh .'o a f* 

o *> P O 

•s ilii 


2: • OJ w . 


1 


as-i 

1^ 


§ 

O) 

P* 

00 
rH 

P 

1 

o 




jf 

ill 




1 

p 

;. 
C 

1 

' 1 

c 

p 

p 

c; 

m 
>535 


o 


m 

'O 
u 
a 

t 

;^ 

CO 

p 


1 -^tff fiilll: 

;Sgbioa«^ fl „ij^.S 

III i:i.l slips: 




1- 


PI 
'3 


c 

J 


; oj M O V 


1 : 




q 
>> 


"B 




."S"i 






r 


pi 

o 


Q 


4 o o a 

.a 


a 


> ^llss-isltsfsllsill 






n 






u 




§ 




u 


Q e 


U Hi 


&4 fL| 



APPENDICES. 



249 



eococo c<i o (M 

lO-<*<t- 00 O lO 

Ob-^iO ■*' O O 

OOOO O <N O 



^ 


CO 


§ 




CO 


00 
rH 
rH 



iH 00 
OOOO 



o 

CO 


? 




OlOt- 

d 






S 


OOCD 
»00<N 


I- 


o 

H 


CO 





QOIOOO 
COr-IQO 


00 


o 


00 
00 


t-rHOO 
rHCDrH 
iNrHCO 


05 


C^J 


CD 
rH 



§ 


§ 


ooo 
ooo 


§ 


O 
O 


§ 






(MOO 
OSkOiH 


rH 
rH 


(N 





O 


O 


o 


o 


OOO 


O 


CD 


o 


05 


ooo 


r-{ 


rH 


CD 


Ol 


lOlOrH 


r- 


O 


00 


lO 


00 




O 




CO 


rH 














CO 




rH 


1-i 



O 


o 


oo»o 


05 O 


CO o 


co 


o 


o 


ooo 


o 


o 


OiO(M 


<N O 


CD O 


»o 


o 


lO 


ooo 


^ 


CO 


rHCD05 


00 rH 


>o o 


rH 


CO 


00 


OOTt* 


00 


CO 


05Tf<t- 


rH 


t- lO 


<N 


CO 


CO 


lOiNin 


Tf 


rH 


OOrHOO 


CO 


CO 


Tt< 


rH 


T}H 


<N 






t- 










tH 




rH 


•* 






(N 










W 












05 * 










O 


































(^ 










T-T 








. 


^_, 








t-> 




t^ 




O 






:'o 




















lO 


lO 




e] 




^ 
















•a 


73 




. OS 








o 

1 

2 

a 

u 

.a 
o 




o 




o 




a 


a 




.-a 


C3 

a 




il 

^o 


-a 

i 

D 


3 


•a 

o 


rH 

-a 

a 
a 

'a 

1 
'1 


d 

o 


cents per pound a 
per cent. 

cents per pound a 
per cent. 


-a 
a 
a 
c 
o 
u 

fl 
(1) 


o 


00 


r^T- tH 


o: 


CO 


o: 


CO 


lO 


■* 


■* 


loot- 


c^ 


CO 


(M-V5-a«- 


e« 


€^ 


w 


se- 


CO 


^ 


■* 


MCOM 



ICO O 
a; O) il> 
;.< t>'C3 

o t^ >- 

w be© 
o S'P 



2°§ 



a> a 



^ ^ 






<v 









<M 






5 0)^^^ 

S S. CD rrji^ P'q.q.;^ 

a; CO 2.r;.Q a 1^ 5 . S 






.- "OS-." 



§0 

a&c 



"3 



■^ «- a'2i.d 
^ fl'O g cr^i 

fi o +3 >: o a 
&c o C3X5 a a*-! 
"S^ . -."S a o <s "=' 

a o n g o „--S a 



§11 

bco 03 

-^ . 



^>^- 



!3 p 



§>. '2 



P.2 

W Q, 
O+J 



v^ 



a 3 

US 

1 a M 



oi o 
^ a 

o ^ 






^aSaba 



« S^.-^ 






« ^ fl t- 



a«=o 






CO O) 



p 



cj'-^^ 



w ii H ^ . . 
oj « g a 0} 



^p 






'tjoos-rt"^- >'2 



ej ^ 



CD fee 0) <D O 2 '^ ™-r^ 11 s 
0j.SocS=M'TlOc3Sir-i>C 



6ca 



ao 

tP q 0) ^ ►^^ tj Hi 

^ Q K 



-g|a>.^ 



aoa;5"'g , 

5 q o ^ g p: 
<D ^ ccZ3 O <v ' 



g I 

<v 
'o .. w 

P rn "S 

.S+e o 
t. ^-^ 

o - 






^ '^S 



"V ^ 
P O 

O-U 

as-i . 
aco 

bC^-p 



fcc"^ 



OJ «2 « ^ 



.TS a o tw p> 



2o|, 

-""Sept's 

g«^^p -Sg 

a^pao^«^ 

O . bfj^-'-' rg tH 

P o o § g a 
os.q 03'^'^ <A 

p p 



250 



APPENDICES. 







■goo 


•* 


IN 


■* 


CO 


(M 








05 


t- 


rH 





"* 






o^S 


^. 


CO 


■* 


05 


CO 








00 


b- 


r-{ 





rH 






b^ 


oi 


\6 


T-i 


6 








b^ 


10 


10 


rH 


b^ 




. o 


o 


o 


(M 


»o 


(N 








o 





CO 


(N 





1 

>• 


fin 


T^ 


r-< 


rH 


v\ 


tH 








H 


•r-< 


tH 


rH 


rH 


-i-> 1 


io 


zo 


<M 


CO 


rH 


CO 








rH 


00 


b- 




CO 


< 


<D^ a . 


05 


la 




00 


IM 


(M 








C^l 


CO 


00 


M 


05 


P3 g oj t>> 


C^ 


■^ 


CO 


kO 


CO 


CD 








rH 


rH 


M 


CO 


j-t 




r^ S JS j2 
































































ao 
































O 


Tfi 


'>*l 


CD 


CO 


rH 








lO 


CD 


iO 


tH 


00 




^. 


'*. 


t-^ 


lO 


o 


\a 








tH 


CD 





b- 


00 




tH 


b^ 


(^J 


ci 


t^ 


CD 








d 


(N 


(N 


d 


rH 


1 


IM 


O 


o 


o 


? 


t- 








(M 


10 


i-f 


Ut) 


00 


<© 


00 


00 


(N 


iH 








00 


b- 


CO 


XJH 


Tt< 
































P 








iO 


CO 


Ttt 








d 


CO 




rH 


CO 












00 








tH 


CD 






CD 












rH 








CD 


T^ 




























c4" 










"Id 


o 


o 


o 


~iO 


o 








o 
















TJH 


kO 


o 


o 


00 


CO 








o 











t- 


CO 


t- 


rH 


t-^ 


t-^ 


d 


tH 








CO 


CD 


05 


oi 


06 


® 


Oi 


lO 


o 


Tt< 


CO 


05 








CO 


rH 


00 


05 


>o 


d 


lO 


t- 


\a 


rH 


CD 


CD 








\Q 


00 


rH 


rH 


(M 


'3 








"* 


ci cf 








05- Ttf 




H 


05~ 












lO 








■* 


10 



















T^ 








■* 


■Hy 




























(M 












c 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


CD 








\a 





iO 








t» 


\r. 


t- 


\a 


iq 


o 


!>; 








i> 


kO 


(N 


iq 





.2 


<N 


OS 


05 


r-i 


CD 


CO 








r- 


rH 


05 


■* 


CO 


-g 


(M 


TtH 


t- 


iH 


(N 


CD 








05 


t-\ 


10 


CO 


b- 




O CD 


05^ 


1-1 


1- 


O 








00 


a 


CD 


05__ 


t^^ 


•*j 


























d 


cq 


1-1 


tH 


t-" 


00 


lO 








t- 


Ol 




rH 


b-" 


03 












th 








in 


<M 









3 












o\ 








o\ 


t- 






CO 


O* 




















c 




T- 










O lO 


o 


O 


c 


o 








-d 


■d 





<i> 


-d 




CO CO 


iO 


lO 


\a \a> 








ft4 ft.1 


kO 


»o 






ro 13 


-d 


-d 


'C 


13 








> rd 


-d 




fl rt 


d 


d 


c 


d 















d 






d cj 


03 


^ 


rt d 








a; 


Ol 


eS 


Oj 


0) 


13 




















ft4 


f-i 






ft.1 


-O 13 


"d 


-d 


•d -d 








C 


^§1 


. -d 


-d 


oj 


fl a 


d 


d 


e 


d 










■it 


d 


d+J 


3 3 


d 


d 




d 








c 


d 


era 


o o 


o 


o 


o o 








(C 


w 





CO a, 


^ 


Ol a 


a 


a 


a a 












a 


CJ 




















ftj 


:.< (.< 


Ui 




^1 


w 


t-l tj 


t^ 


;^ 


u u 








0) « 


S S.I 


u 


Ol 


O) d) 


O) 


OJ 


o a> 








a a a 0, « 


<v 




n^Jft+j 


a+j p«4j 


a+j-a+j 










" a+ja4J 


a> >-i 0) ^ 


d^d^ 


§ t4 gfc* 






g-sg-o g 


3|§ 

-. S f- 






O 0) o <u 


o 0) S<i> 


OOi Soi 






c 


a <i> « 






P4 a 


a a 


a a 








9j 


es 


a a c3 




(M CO 


CO 


■* 


CO Tj< 








t- b- 


CO 


■* 


rH 




(M CO 


CO 


■* 


CO ^ 












CO 


"H 


rH 






■d 




'd 




•d 


- 


1 


^ 






. 


vi 










g 




g 




d 


.d 


3 






', 


a 










. a 




a 




a 


o 
o 


0) 


i 






Oi 


^ 














u 

a 




u 
a 


d 




% 






-d 

d 

d 


i 










m 


d 

d 


5 


^ 


M 


"5 


^ 


a 


u 




a 




b- 


t 




c 


d 

0) 


o 


d 


y 






p- 


Id ^ 








i-l 






a 


a> 


-c 


d 
a> 

CJ 


HH 




a 


U'Z 


^ 




g 
^ 




a 




5 


o 




o 


p 




u 


o 


oj ;- 


V 


13 


>» 




i: 


!J o 


-d 
d 
d 


O 
I- 

d 


i 


d 


1 
o 




11 


. 1 


' IS' 


2 

d 




r 
c 

a 

c 


d 
. 1 

' a 
+-> 

s 

O 
'^ 

d 

,d 
+-> 


a 


0! 

o 


1 

c 
ft. 


d 
o 




u 
o 

d 




^ P 
1 


o) a 

-n 

Is 

d+j 

:i 

t> 

d 

II 

bcoj 


a 



d 


Jg 

d 


1 
<1 


e 
I 

c 

t 

c 
£ 


Sd 
d-S 

|| 


o - 

d y 

o c 
-* 1 -^ 

-u co-t. 

lU 

2 S d c 


d rQ o >,'d lo a 

^ S-d 2? o o)^ 
■^ ^ d a; o c^S 

2 M^^'W ^ 03^4- 


i 
' 1 

V 

c 
c 

b- 

a 

1 


-d 

d 
a 



d-^ 
+^ d 

il 

'd d 

0) d 


a 

^^ 

do 

n 
1^ 




11 


. -s^s^ 


o3^^ 

> 


Ore 

9 <i 


1gl? 


^ 


-2 


n TO 




^ 




Is 




! ^ 


s 






I^as 




(.1 










s 








|> 


> 


i'^ 

























O 




£« 




























C 




^ 



















APPENDICES. 



251 






o o o o\ \a 

i> M CO o o 

d t-^ t-^ tH d 

CO O tH TtH TtH 

r^ H H rH H 



r- 


t'- 


\a 


rH 


(N 


lO 


<M 


Oi 


CO 


05 




CI 


^ 


CO 


O 


a, 


l- 


TjH 


"*! 


Tti 


Th 


CD 


on 


Oi 


lO 


00 


<M 


CO 


CO 


Ci 


-* 


»n> 


00 


CO 


CO 


TtH 


q 


CO 


»o 



00 <M CO 
05 O 



o o o 

00 CO c\ 

CO CD t- 

CO tH 05_ 

CO CO 

CO O 

CO CO 



Oi CO rH 



ctf • 'O 'O 'O 

s-t; rt fl fl 

M g o o o 

" ft a a 



ft4J ft4-> ft-t 
'-' fl o « O iX" o 



1 



•d "o "O 

^ 2 '^ 

td "O "d 




o 
ft 

, a; 
. ' ft+ 



'O ftf ^3 

ca ia PI 



a-t-j ft+j a 
i5 g r/r g ^ 

ft 



a ft '=^ a 

CO Tt< Tt< 



CO 



a n „ 

OJ or QP Xi 

s-i S t-i (U : 

0) g 4, o 

a^ a 

Tf( CO 

Tt< CO 



SB 



2 o 



i-M a+j 
g w g 
Eg-! S 

a> o a! o 

a a 

Tt< CO 

Tfl CO 



o) ?^ a> 
a^ a 



^~~ o 



w a 

'd CJ-l-> 

o t» w 

ft ^O 

oi a 

^ S^ 

-a g^ 



§ 2 



t i 



5 =«■ 



6Dn3 



4J a 



13^ 

^ M fl 
gOcu 

a> rj O) 

3 o a 









CJ»0 
O ai 



M 



'^ S'O •qjo'O ^s-a 
tj fl fl oi o a> 
Old 13-- 3 as 

a 



-^ I 

In I'* 

a t. cs cj 
?i a "^ 

^^ag 

j_) a* fc< ►* 
■g CJ o o 

S5§a 



^ SJ a a I 2 
: i"^l^ft 

> ,b5ti -^ 

=3 ri a o a; 
] a .^o 

"S . -d ^ 

3'§S=«2 a 2 

i a ci ^-a S3 
- -r ft— I -ti > 



a^ 

a 
na a 

(D o 

a a 



252 



APPENDICES. 



APPENDIX B. 

OPERATIONS OF Mckinley tariff by months. 

Office of the Secretary of the Tkeasury, 
Division of Warrants, Estimates, and Appropriations. 

Comparatwe statement of the receipts and! expenditures of the United 

States. 

RECEIPTS. 



Soiirce 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




Month of Oc- 
tober, 1890 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Month of Oc- 
tober. 1889. 


Since July 1, 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

Nat onal - bank 

deposit fund. . 


$24,934,114.05 
12,840,250.54 

993.720.00 
1,447,809.70 


$91,238,718 97 
49 730,b01.69 

0,715,260.00 
6,942,864.18 


$18,815,040.44 
11,625,469.47 


$77,085,886.99 
46,356,007.00 


Miscellaneous . . . 


2,052,097.73 


8,587.110.32 


Total 


40,215,894.29 


154,627,144.74 


32,492,607.64 


1.32,029,004.31 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National > ank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 



$11,542,447.85 

4,965,747.99 

2,471.248.56 

1,300,286.18 

11,097,474.24 



2,202,728.00 

4,312,965.93 

143,215.49 



$34,821,918.79 

16,130,568.89 

7,730,667.82 

2,286,799.74 

44,837,292.67 



6,093,928.50 

25,826,454.52 

8,451,635.39 



38,036,664.24 



146,159,266.32 



$7,441,648.22 

5,619,672.91 

1,773,957.01 

644,737.20 

4,694,404.96 



6,132,839.69 
2,291,5.37.72 



28,598,797.71 



$28,885,318.54 

20.381,720.42 

7,250,632.93 

2,669,613.23 

40.182,032.33 



16,426,296.86 
8,600,925.49 



124,396,539.80 



RECEIPTS. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




Month of No- 
vember, 1890. 


Since July 1, 
1890 


Month of No- 
vember, 1889. 


Since July 1, 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous . . . 


$15,227,641.28 
•1,322,047.31 

307,450.00 
2,128,986.12 


$108132,662.42 
62,078611.99 

7,022,710.00 

9,735,658.74 


$16,614,488.23 
11,159,069.42 


$93,704,225.71 
57,517,783.85 


2,943,409.49 


12,080,893.90 


Total 


28.986,124.71 


186,972,643.15| 30,716,967.14 


163,302,903.46 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$8,771,335.85 

3,691,893.26 

2,321,959.98 

626,524.92 

21,511,161.49 

2,109,684.50 
3.537,462 40 


$43,593,454.64 

19,822,462.15 

10,052,627.80 

2,913,324.66 

66,348,454.16 

8,236,063.00 

29,363,916.92 

8,451,635.39 


$5,792,589.33 

3,245,263.04 

1,824,033.59 

757,857.27 

10,775,646.23 


$34,677,907.87 
23,626,983.46 


Navy 


9.074,666.52 
3,427,470.50 


Pensions 

National -bank 
fund, redemp- 


50,957,678.56 


Interest . 


774,069.74 
2,165,298.90 


17,200,366.60 




10,766,224.39 








Total 


42,570,022.40 


188,781,938.72 


25,334,758.10 


149,731,297.90 



APPENDICES. 



253 



Coinparativo statement of tlm receipts and expenditures of the United 
States— Continued. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




Month of De- 
cember, 1890. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Month of De- 
cember, 1889. 


Since July 1, 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-ban k 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$16,104,533.09 
12,944,173.21 

263,875.00 
2,057,458.57 


$124,240,195.51 
75,022,785.20 

7,286,585.00 
11,793,117.31 


$15,925,107.32 
11,003,848.84 


$109,029,333.03 
68,521,632.69 


2,666,548.33 


14,747.442.23 


Total 


31,370.039.87 


218,342,683.02 


29,595,504.49 


192,898,407.95 



EXPENDITDKES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National- b an k 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 



$8,362,245.00 

3,669,026.16 

2,163,809.76 

723,860.55 

2,653,515.94 



1.935,467.00 

470,621.74 

1,910,203.85 



21,888,550.00 



$51,955,699.64 

23,491,48831 

12,216.437.56 

3,637,185.21 

69,001,970.10 



10,171,530.00 
29,834,538.66 
10,361,639.24 



210,670,488.72 



$5,577,342.65 

3,453,129.55 

1,646,953.92 

729,555.35 

10,322,384.73 



1,461.654.34 
2,692,958.86 



25.883.979.40 



$40,255,250.52 

27,080,113.01 

10,721,620.44 

4,157,025.85 

61.280.063.29 



18.662,320.94 
13,459,183.25 



175,615,277.30 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30. 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




Month of Jan- 
uary. 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Month of Jan- 
uary, 1890. 


Since July 1. 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous. . . . 


$23,897,9.53.06 
11,253,863.80 

245,740.00 
1,658,416.39 


$148,138,148.57 
86.276,649.00 

7,532.325.00 
13.451.533.70 


$21,743,305.83 
10,034,688.12 

2,883,164. i2 


$131,372,638.86 
78.556.320.81 

i7.636,"606.35 


Total 


37,055,973.25 


255.398.656.27 


34,661,158.07 


227.559,566.02 



EXPENDITUEES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 



$9,747,655.06 

4,450.327.50 

2.386,295.82 

963,690.10 

1,080,570.56 



2,461,760.00 

2,851,428.66 

39,581.37 



23,981.309.07 



$61,539,224.21 

27.938.204.23 

14,603,367.59 

4,602,007.62 

70,081,657.48 



12,633.290.00 
32.675.449.15 
10,401,220.61 



234,474,420.89 



$10,144,634.31 

2.859.904.57 

2,193.746.33 

480.596.99 

2.176,772.75 



7,916.800.22 
2,086,335.17 



27,858,790.64 



$50,342,288.07 

29.939.476.30 

12.911,435.51 

4.637,201.64 

63,455,71833 



26,577,996.45 
15,545,518.42 



203,409,634.72 



\ 



254 



APPENDICES. 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




February. 


Since July 1 . 


February. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$18,994,189.72 
9,489,629.57 

338,145.00 
789,353.73 


$166,310,626.68 
96,478,005.79 

7,870,470.00 
15,184,875.47 


$18,966,505.50 
10,114,960.02 


$150,810,622.46 
89,317,749.81 


1.784.752.72 


20,326,554.31 


Total 


29,611,318.02 


285,843,977.94 


30,866,218.24 


260,454,926.58 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$6,180,218.75 

2,841 ,729.84 

2,086,497.66 

667,113.25 

17,310,563.08 

2,279,340.50 
359,546.78 


$67,719,442.96 

30,779,934.07 

16,689,865.25 

5,269,120.87 

87,392,220.56 

14,912,630.50 
33,034,995.93 
10,401,220.61 


.$5,069,175.49 

-2,433.849.08 

2,058,749.89 

363,093.11 

13,660,764.86 


$55,411,463.56 
32,373 325 38 




14,970,185.40 


Indians 


5,000,294 75 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 


77,116,483.19 




518,161.88 
956,910.16 


27,096,158.33 


Premium 


16,502,428.58 








Total 


31,725,009.86 


266,199,430.75 


25,060,704.47 


228,470,339.19 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending Jvme 30, 
1890. 




March. 


Since July 1. 


March. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National- b ank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$15,373,522.85 
11,206,723,41 

390,875.00 
2,447,209.20 


$181,684,149.53 
107,684,729.20 

f 8,261,345.00 
17,632,084.67 


$20,800,765.82 
11,281,856.81 


$171,611,388.28 
100,599,606.62 


2,695,558.26 


23,022.112.57 


Total 


29,418,330.46* 315,262,308.40 


34,778,180.89 


295,233,107.47 



EXPENDITUEES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$11,647,638.63 
3,707,580.96 
2,353,469.26 
1,120,046.85 
9,514,578.24 

2,440,204.50 
719,423.16 


$79,367,081.59 

34,487,515.03 

19,043,334.51 

6,389,167.72 

96,906,798.80 

17,352,835.00 
33,754,419.09 
10,401,220.61 


$5,467,121.75 

2,494,189.73 

1,682,097.65 

702,517.40 

3,854,915.10 


$60,878,585.31 
34,867,515.11 


Navy 


16,652,283.05 


Indians 


5,702,812.15 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 


80,971,398.29 


Interest 


1,339,299.79 
2,094,595.85 


28,435,458.12 




18,597,024.43 








Total 


31,502.941.60 


297,702,372.35 


17,634,737.27 


246,105,076.46 



APPENDICES. 



255 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




Month of 
April, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Month of 
April, 1890. 


Since July 1, 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous . . . 


$12,591,990.18 
11,420,455.56 

580,000.00 
1,452,785.90 


$194,276,139.71 
119,105,184.76 

9,145,695.00 
19,084,870.57 


$19,907,466.60 
12,105,148.93 


$191,518,854.88 
112,704,755.55 


2,004,425.87 


25,020,535.44 


Total 


26,045,831.64 


341,611,890.04 


34,017,041.40 


329,253,145.87 



EXrENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$14,036,844.80 

4,263,705.37 

2,699,898.94 

771,451.98 

264,191.83 

1,540.686.53 
2,554,951.31 


$93,411,402.34 

38,749,792.29 

21,140,905.08 

7,159,347.71 

97,174,355.28 

19,196,671.50 
36,091,822.31 
10,401,220.61 


$7,915,315.97 

3,698,774.81 

1,921,907.74 

422,425.48 

9,614,610.49 


$68,682,311.17 
38,561,739.43 


Navy 


18,569,830 54 




6,126,559.34 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fimd, redemp- 
tion account . 


90,583,210.88 




'5,660,971.85 
673,917.46 


34,096,372.44 


Premium 


19,270,941.83 








Total 


25,331,194.36 


323,325,517.12 


29,907,923.70 


275,890,965.63 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




Month of May. 
1891. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 


Month of May, 
1891. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National -bank 

deposit fund 


$11,995,141.77 
12,232,704.18 

128,120.00 
3,061,459.99 


$205,731,913.13 
132,216,628.99 

8,970,065.00 
22,890,360.17 


$17,084,403.09 
16,392,161.43 


$208,017,572.19 
129,500,127.32 


Miscellaneous . . . 


2,002,987.24 


27,019,388.57 


Total 


27,417,425.94 


369,808,967.29 


35,443,551.76 


364,537,088.08 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War ... . 


$10,132,414.20 

5,389,418.48 

2,751,875.11 

580,914.84 

8,519,169.53 

2,081,758.50 
316,534.49 


$103,543,816.54 

44,139,210.77 

23,892,780.19 

7,740,262.55 

105,693,524.81 

20,974,680.00 
36,408,356.80 
10,401,220.61 


$7,527,685.39 

3,721,044.60 

1,712,839.73 

352,742.86 

12,594,516.40 


$76,209,996.56 

42,282,784.03 

20,282,670.27 

6 479 302 20 




Indians 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund redemp- 
tion account. . 


103,177,727.28 


Interest 


513,584.17 
811,561.96 


34 609 956 61 




20,082,503.79 






Total.- 


29,772,085.15 


352,793,852.27 


27,233,975.11 


303,f24,940.74 



256 



APPENDICES'. 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




Month of 
June, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Month of 
June, 1890. 


Since July 1, 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 
National - b a n Ic 


$14,168,745.47 
13,726,652.43 

89,900.00 
3,736,451.61 


$219,900,658.60 
145,943,281.42 

9,059,965.00 
26,626,811.78 


$21,641,827.53 
12,641,939.21 


$229,668,584.57 
142,606,705.81 


Miscellaneous 


3,263,125.11 


30,805,692.25 


Total 


31,721,749.51 


■ 401,530,716.80 


37,546,891.85 403,080,982.63 



EXPENDITUEES. 



CivU and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


! 

$6,595,523.30 $110,139,339.84 

4,583,906.081 48,723,116.85 

2,222,318.26! 26,115,098.45 

785,925.69! 8,526,188.24 

18,721,585.56 124,415,110.37 

2,274,868.50 23,249,548.50 

718,844.57 37,127,201.37 

10,401,220 61 


$5,171,942.64 

2,-274,377.02 

1,687,837.56 

231,667.94 

3,761,696.22 


$81,403,256.49 

44,582,838.08 


Navy 


22 006,206 24 




6,708,046.67 


Pensions 

National- b ank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 


106,936,855.07 




1,513,861.94 
221,720.27 


36,099,284.05 


Premium 


20,304,224.06 








Total 


35,902,971.96; 388,696,824.23 

! 


14,863,103.59 


318,040,710.66 



RECEIPTS. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30. 
1891. 




Month of July, 
1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Month of July, 
1890. 


Since July 1, 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-ban k 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$15,468,153.91 
14,551,867.92 

142,100.00 
4,138,222.85 


$219,900,658.60 
145,943,281.42 

9,059,965.00 
26,626,811.78 


$23,953,386.00 
11,717,499.64 

303,750.00 
2,328,580.80 


$229,668,584.57 
142,606,705.81 

36',86.5, ■692.25 


Total 


34,300,344.68 


401,530,716.80 


38,303,216.44 


403,080,982.63 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$12,321,541.13 

5,734,022.38 

2,233,716.07 

1,245,829.81 

13,663,326.43 

1,698,617.00 
2,822,598.31 


$110,139,339.84 

48,723,116.85 

26,115,098.45 

8,526,188.24 

124,415,110.37 

23,249,548.50 
37,127,201.37 
10,401,220.61 


$8,025,059.44 

4,185,165.12 

2,126,919.06 

262,074.98 

14,863,492.39 

303,750.00 
7,232,108.73 
2,054,379.44 


$81,403,256.49 
44,582,838.08 




22,006,206.24 


Indians. . 


6,708,046.67 


Pensions 

National-ban k 
fund, redemp- 


106,936,855.07 


Interest 


36,099,284.05 


Premium 


20,304,224,06 








Total 


39,719.651.13 


388,696,824.23 


39,052,949.16 


318,040,710.66 



APPENDICES. 



257 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending JuiiC 30, 
1891. 




Month of Au- 
gust, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 


Month of Au- 
gust, 1890. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-ban k 

deposit fund . . 

Miscellaneous 


$15,164,674.61 
12,501,829.02 

110,870.00 
1,107,477.47 


$30,632,828.52 
27,053,696.94 

252,970.00 
5,245,700.32 


$20,315,879.96 
12,557 852.20 

2,700,540.00 
1,033,177.30 


$44,269,265.96 
24,275.351 84 

3,004,290.00 
3,361,758.10 


Total 


28,884,851.10 


63,185,195.78 


36,607,449.46 


74,910,665.90 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$6,861,616.19 

3,590,617.41 

2.784,990.46 

737,505.54 

5,094,323.88 

1,200,536.50 
468,430.97 


$19,205,285.96 

9,381,771.36 

5,018,706.53 

1,983,335.35 

18,757,650.31 

2,899.153.50 
3,291,029.28 


$7,824,222.82 

3,326,672.31 

1,592,492.58 

166,726.02 

18,838,658.73 

1,849,219.00 

876,219.13 

1,729,849.72 


$15,848,282.26 
7,511,837.43 


Navy 


3 719 411 64 




428,801.00 


Pensions 

National-ban k 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 


33,702,151.12 

2,152,969.00 
8,108,327.86 


Premium 


3 784 229 16 










Total 


20,738,020.95 


60,536,932.29 


36,204,060.31 


75,257,009.47 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending .Tune 30, 
1890. 




Month of Sep- 
tember, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Month of Sep- 
tember, 1890. 


Since July 1, 
1889. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous.... 


$14,120,940.30 
11,946,531.71 

835,693.00 
1,098,082.24 


$44,753,768.82 
39,000,228.65 

1,088,663.00 
6,343,782.56 


$22,035,338.96 
12,614,699.21 

3,021,000.00 
2,133,296.38 


$66,304,604.92 
36,890,051.05 

6,025,290.00 
5,495,054.48 


Total 


28,001,247.25 


91,186,443.02 


39,804,334.55 114,715,000.45 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National -bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Prem lum 



Total. 



$7,292,546.11 
3,961,443.95 

2,580,157.68 
1,335,038.98 
6,682,878.75 



1,667,763.50 
414,972.22 



23,934,801.19 



$26,497,832.07 

13,343,215.31 

7,598,864.21 

3,318,374.33 

25,440,529.06 



4,566,917.00 
3,706,001.50 



84,471,733.48 



$7,530,030.09 

3,655,039.44 

1,551,013.72 

556,771.89 

37,977.32 



2,074,431.50 

13,410,000.86 

4,524,190.74 



33,339,455.56 



$23,379,312.35 

11,166,876.87 

5,270,425.36 

985,572.89 

33,740,128.44 



4,227,400.50 

21,518,328.72 

8,308,419.90 



108,596,465.03 



258 



APPENDICES. 



Comparative stat&ment of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 

P.ECEIPTS. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




Month of Oc- 
tober, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 


Month of Oc- 
tober, 1890. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund . . 

Miscellaneous 


$13,980,687.43 
13,066,461.15 

111,990.00 
1,401,413.63 


$58,734,456.25 
52,066,689.80 

1,200,653.00 
7,745,196.19 


$24,934,114.05 
12,840,250.54 

993,720.00 
1,447,809.70 


$91,238,718.97 
49,730,301.59 

7,019,010.00 
6,942,864.18 


Total 


28,560,5.52.21 


119,746,995.24 


40,215,894.29 


154,930,894.74 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$8,983,729.89 

2,281,916.60 

2,383,305.58 

850,858.99 

10,976,593.69 

1,221,457.50 
5,174,405.77 


$35,424,927.70 

15,619,071.55 

9,945,339.62 

4,211,286.61 

36,417,859.40 

5,788,374.-50 
8,880,000.53 


$11,542,447.85 

4,965,747.99 

2,471,248.56 

1,300,836.18 

11,097,474.24 

2,202,728.00 

4,312,965.93 

143,215.49 


$34,822,118.79 
16,130,568.89 


Navy 


7,730,667 82 




2,286,799.74 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 


44,837,292.67 

6,430,128.50 
25,826,454.52 




8,451,635.39 










Total 


31,872,268.02 


116,286,859.91 


38,036,664.24 


146,515,666.32 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending Jime 30, 
1891. 




Month of No- 
vember, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 


Month of No. 
vember, 1890. 


Since July 1 , 
1890. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund . . 

Miscellaneous. . . . 


$12,659,039.01 
12,480,326.54 

114,275.00 
1,663,522.17 


$71,885,786.19 
64,630,234.87 

1,314,928.00 
9,981,352.52 


$15,227,641.28 
11,322,047.31 

307,450.00 
2,128,986.12 


$108,135,662.42 
62,078,611.99 

7,326,460.00 
9,735,658.74 


Total ". 


26,917,162.72 


147,812,301.58 


28,986,124.71 


187,276,393.15 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National -bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 



Total, 



$6,072,845.14 
4,055,177.22 
2,684,497.01 
1,200,684.31 

11,783,598.71 



1,754,954.50 
359,245.41 



27,911,002.30 



$41,497,772.84 

19,674,248.77 

12,629,836.63 

5,411,970.92 

48,200,458.11 



7,543,329.00 
9,239,245.94 



144,196,862.21 



$8,771,335.85 

3,691,893.26 

2,321,959.98 

626,524.92 

21,511,161.49 



2,109,684.50 
3,537,462.40 



42,570,022.40 



$43,593,454.64 

19,822.462.15 

10,052,627.80 

2,913,324.66 

66,348,454.16 



8,539,813.00 

29,363,916.92 

8,451,635.39 



189,085,688.72 



APPENDICES. 



259 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 



RECEIPTS, 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1890. 




December. 


Since July 1. 


December. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$13,836,555.64 
12,427,046.73 

286,470.00 
1,382,913.36 


$85,722,341.83 
77,057,281.60 

1,601,398.00 
11,364,265.88 


$16,104,533.09 
12,944,173.21 

263,875.00 
2,057,458.57 


$124,240,195.51 
75,022,785.20 

7,590,335.00 
11,793,117.31 


Total 


27.932.985.73 


175,745,287.31 


31,370,039.87 


218,646,433.02 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$8,342,679.75 
5,102,456.59 
2,427,108.94 
1,086,004.54 

13,140,769.05 

1,397.162.00 
325,708.80 


$49,840,452.59 

24,776,705.36 

15,056,945.57 

6.497,975.46 

61,341,227.16 

8,940,491.00 
9,564,954.74 


$8,362,245.00 

3,669,026.16 

2,163,809.76 

723,860.55 

2,653,515.94 

1,935,467.00 

470,621.74 

1,910,003.85 


$51,955,699.64 
23,491,488.31 


Navy . . . 


12,216,437 56 




3,637,185.21 


Pensions 

National -bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 


69,001,970.10 

10,475,280.00 
29,834,538.66 


Premium 


10,361,639.24 










Total 


31,821,889.67 


176,018,751.88 


21,888,550.00 


210,974,238.72 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




January. 


Since July 1. 


January. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous. . . . 


$17,459,285.74 
11,439,956.70 

159,250.00 
1,484,236,16 


$103,181,627.57 
88,497,238.30 

1,760,648.00 
12,848,502.04 


$23,897,953.06 
11,253,863.80 

F 245,740.00 
1,658,416.39 


$148,138,148.57 
86,276,649.00 

7,836,075.00 
13,451,533.70 


Total 


30,542,728.60 


206,288,015.91 


37,055,973.25 


255,702,406.27 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion accoxmt. . 

Interest 

Premium 



Total. 



$9,473,708.04 

4,067,179.34 

2,489,355.26 

950,365.05 

10,521,941.40 



1,488,172.50 
6,672,801.01 



35,663,522.60 



$59,271,930.22 

28,842,751.63 

17,545,431.60 

7,448,175.76 

71,871,961.23 



10,428,663.50 
16,238,680.75 



211,647,594.69 



$9,747,655.06 

4,450,327.50 

2,386,295.82 

963,690.10 

1,080,-570.56 



2,461,760.00 

2,851,428.66 

39,581.37 



23,981,309.07 



161,539,224.21 

27,938,204.23 

14,613,367.59 

4,602,007.62 

70,081,657.48 



I F 12,937,040.00 
32,675,449.15 
10,401,220.61 



234,778,170.89 



260 



APPENDICES. 



Comparative statement of tJve receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




Month of Feb - 
ruary, 1892. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 


Month of Feb- 
ruary, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


1$16,782,419.95 
a 12,189,387.36 

F'^ 56,960.00 
1,727,137.26 


$119,896,874.59 
101,157,232.47 

1,817,608.00 
15,220,016.16 


$18,994,189.72 
. 9,489,629.57 

: ^1^338,145.00 
789,353.73 


$166,310,626.68 
96,478,005.79 

8,174,220.00 
15,184,875.47 


Total 


30,755,904.57 


238,091,731.22 


29,611,318.02 


286,147,727.94 



EXPENDITUEES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$8,223,430.67 

3,072,548.00 

1,852,926.67 

487,763.85 

11,561,447.31 

1,519,333.50 
764,609.13 


$67,495,360.89 

31,915,299.63 

19,398,358.27 

7,935,939.61 

83,433,408.54 

11,947,997.00 
17,003,289.88 


$6,180,218.75 

2,841,729.84 

2,086,497.66 

667,113.25 

17,310,563.08 

2,279,340.50 
359,546.78 


$67,719,442.96 
30 779 934 07 




16,689,865.25 


Indians 


5,269,120 87 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion accovmt . . 


87,392,220.56 

15,216,380.50 
33,034,995.93 


Premium 


10,401,220.61 












Total 


27,482,059.13 


239,129,653.82 


31,725,009.86 


266,503,180.75 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




March. 


Since July 1. 


March. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National -bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$16,415,312.33 
12,133,601.09 

212,200.00 
1,287,692.91 


$136,312,186.92 
113,290,833.56 

2,029,808.00 
16,507,709.07 


$15,373,522.85 
11,206,723.41 

390,875.00 
2,447,209.20 


$181,684,149.53 
107,684,729.20 

8,565,095.00 
17,632,084.67 


Total 


30,048,806.33 


268,140,537.55 


29,418,330.46 


315,566,058.40 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous •:. 

War 


$7,800,501.86 

3,434,574.96 

2,405,585.01 

957,119.43 

12,937,407.06 

1,205,372.50 
249,028,97 


$75,295,862.75 

35,349,874.59 

21,803,943.28 

8,893,059.04 

96,370,815.60 

13,153,369.50 
17,252,318.85 


$11,647,638.63 
3,707,580.96 
2,353,469.26 
1,120,046.85 
9,514,578.24 

2,440,204.50 
719,423.16 


$79,367,081.59 
34,487,515 03 




19,043,334.51 




6,389,167.72 


Pensions 

National -b ank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 


96,906,798.80 

17,656.585.00 
33,754,419.09 




10,401,220.61 












Total 


28,989,589.79 


268,119,243.61 


31,502,941.60 


298,006,122.35 



APPENDICES. 



261 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — ^Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




April. 


Since July 1. 


April. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal i-e venue 

National- b a n k 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$13,709,989.18 
12,048,622.17 

417,130.00 
1,212,612.69 


$150,022,176.10 
125,339,455.73 

2,446,938.00 
17,720,321.76 


$12,591,990.18 
11,420,455.56 

580,600.00 
1,452,785.90 


$194,276,139.71 
119,105,184.76 

9,145,695.00 
19,084,870.-57 


Total 


27,388,354.04 


295,528,891.59 


26,045,831.64 


341,611,890.04 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$9,104,040.82 

3,600,098.06 

2,008,779.34 

876,017.86 

12,705,035.01 

1,038,445.00 
1,765,660.88 


$84,354,620.22 

38,950,557.81 

23,811,945.01 

9,774,110.85 

109,552,610.08 

14,191,814 50 
19,016,898.73 


$14,036,844.86 

4,263,768.37 

2,099,898.94 

771,451.98 

264,191.80 

1,540,086 50 
2,354.951.61 


$93,411,402.34 
38.749,792 29 


Navy 


21,140,905.08 


Indians 


7,159 347 71 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion accoxmt . . 

Interest . . . 


97,174,355.28 

19,196,671.50 
36,091,822.31 




10,401,220.61 












Total 


31,098,076.97 


299,652,557.20 


25,331,194.06 


323,325,517.12 



RECEIPTS. 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




May. 


Since July 1. 


May. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-ban k 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$13,121,391.37 
13,050,106 75 

270,400.00 
2,056,900.33 


$163,264,538.64 
138,763,332.85 

2,717,338.00 
20,968,974.78 


$11,995,141.77 
12 232,704.18 

128,120.00 
3,061 ,459.99 


$205,731,913.13 
132,216,628.99 

9,273,815.00 
22,890,360.17 


Total 


28,498,798.45 


325,714,184.27 


27,417,425.94 


370,112,717.29 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$7,972,853.30 

3,632.339 07 

2,603,881.81 

542,253.72 

12,908,339.24 

1,022,684,50 
4,073,126.75 


$92,327,473.52 
42,532,896.88 
26,415,826.82 
10,316,364.57 

122,460,949.32 

15,214,499.00 
23,090,025.48 


$10,132,414.20 

5,389,418.48 

2,751,875.11 

580,914.84 

8,519,169.53 

2,081,758.50 
316,534.49 


$103,543,816.54 

44,139,210.77 

23,892,780.19 

7,740,262.55 

105,693,524.81 

21,278,430.00 
36,408,356.80 
10,401,220 61 




Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 

Premium 












Total 


32,755,478.39 


332,408,035.59 


29,772,085.15 


353,097,602.27 



262 



APPENDICES. 



Comparative statement of 



the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — ^Continued. 

EECEIPTS. 



Source. 


Fiscal year, ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




Month of 
June, 1892. 


Since July 1 , 
1891. 


Month of 
June, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Customs 

Intprna] revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund . . 

Miscellaneous 


$14,618,495.37 
14,779,922.34 

260,500.00 
1,560,200,27 


$177,883,034.01 
153,543,255.19 

2,977,838.00 
22,529,175.05 


$14,168,745.47 
13,726,652.43 

89,900.00 
3,736,451.61 


$219,522,205.23 
145,686,249.44 

9,363,715.00 
27,403,992.64 


Total '. 


31,219,117.98 


356,933,302.25 


31,721,749.51 


401,976,162.31 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War.... 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions. 

National- bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 



Total. 



$7,606,018.09 

4,314,346.16 

2,760,368.30 

830,621.51 

12,122,095.44 



1,018,222.00 
288,962.75 



28,940,634.25 



$99,933,491.61 
46,897,243.04 
29,176,195.12 
11,146,986.08 

134,583,044.76 



16,232,721.00 
23,378,988.23 



361,348,669.84 



$6,595,523.30 $110,048,167.49 
4,583,906.08 48,720,065.01 



2,222,318.26 

785,925.69 

18,721,585.56 



2,274,868.50 
718,844.57 



35,902,971.96 



26,113,896.46 
8,527,469.01 
124,415,951.40 



23,553,298.50 
37,547,135.37 
10,401,220.61 



389,327,203.85 



Source, 


Fiscal year ending Jime 30, 
1892 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




July. 


Since Jtily 1. 


July. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-ban k 

deposit fund . . 

Miscellaneous 


$17,205,153.00 
14,866,118.33 

257,025.00 
2,243,059.92 


$177,883,034.01 
153,543,255.19 

2,977,838.00 
22,529,175.05 


$15,468,153.91 
14,551,867.92 

142,100.00 
4,138,222.85 


$219,522,205.23 
145,686,249.44 

9,363,715.00 
27,403,992.64 


Total 


34,571,356.25 


356,933,302.25 


34,300,344.68 


401,976,162.31 



EXPENDITUEES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 



Total. 



$8,755,801.44 

3,565,087.62 

2,221,707.86 

508,614.79 

14,235,140,15 



915,430,50 
7,047,624.68 



37,249,407.04 



$99,933,491.61 
46,897,243.04 
29,176,195,12 
11,146,986.08 

134,583,044.76 



16,232,721,00 
23,378,988.23 



361,348,669.84 



$12,343,669.77 

5,791,153.95 

2,233,716.07 

1,245,829.81 

13,663,326.43 



1,698,617.00 
2,822,598,31 



),798,911,34 



$110,048,167.49 

48,720,065.01 

26,113,896.46 

8,527,469.01 

124,415,951,40 



23.553,298,50 
37,547,135.37 
10,401,220.61 



389,327,203,85 



APPENDICES. 



263 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Coutinued. 





Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




August. 


Since July 1. 


August. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-ban k 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$18,271,668.55 
14,063,459.80 

553,870.00 
1,143,930.18 


$35,476,821.55 
28,929.578.13 

810,895.00 
3,386,990.10 


$15,164,674.61 
12,501,829.02 

110,870.00 
1,107,477.47 


$30,632,828.52 
27,053,696.94 

252,970.00 
5,245,700.32 


Total 


34,032,928.53 


68,604,284.78 


28,884,851.10 


63,185,195.78 



EXPENDITUEES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$10,468,448.84 

4,239,044.31 

2,186,749.34 

737,644.41 

13,478,067.56 

640,525.50 
330,299.57 


$19,224,250.28 

7,804,131.93 

4,408,457.20 

1,246,259.20 

27,713,207.71 

1,555,956.00 
7,377,924.25 


$0,861,616.19 
3,590,617.41 
2,784,990.46 
737,505.54 
5,094,323.88 

1,200,536.50 
468,430 97 


$19,205,285.96 
9,381,771.36 


Navy 


5,018,706.53 




1,983,335.35 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 


18,757,650.31 
2,899,153.50 














Total 


32,080,779.53 


69,330,186.57 


20,738,020.95 60,536,932.29 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




September. 


Since July 1. 


September. 


Since July 1. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 


$17,209,947.88 
13,735,887.81 

43,650.00 
851,792.97 


$52,686,769.43 
42,665,465.94 

854,545.00 
4,238,783.07 


$14,120,940.30 
11,946,531.71 

835,693.00 
1,098,082.24 


$44,753,768.82 
39,000,228.65 

1,088,663.00 
6,343,782.56 


Total 


31,841,278.66 


100,445,563.44! 28,001,247.25 


91,186,443.03 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National -b ank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 



Total. 



$7,641,351.04 

4,363,770.46 

2,586,788.07 

698,998.37 

12,654,367.13 



725,375.50 
247,148.17 



28,917,798.74 



$26,865,601.32 

12,167,902.39 

6,995,245.27 

1,945,257.57 

40,367,574.84 



2,281,331.50 
7,625,072 42 



98,247,985.31 



$7,292,546.11 
3,961,443.95 
2,580,157.68 
1,335,038.98 

6,682,878.75 



1 ,667,763.50 
414,972.22 



23,934,801.19 



$26,479,832.07 

13,343,215.31 

7,598,864.21 

3,318,374.33 

25,440,529 06 



4,566,917.00 
3,706,001.50 



84,471,733.48 



264 



APPENDICES. 



Comparative statement of the receipts and Expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 



Source. 



Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 



Month of Oc- 
tober, 1892. 



Since July 1 , 
•1891. 



Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 



Month of Oc- 
tober, 1891. 



Since July 1, 
1890. 



Customs 

Internal revenue 

National- b a n k 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous. . . . 

Total 



$16,366,558.62 
14,153,891.04 

547,598.00 
768,090.55 



$69,053,328.05 
56,819,356.98 

1,402,143.00 
5,006,873.62 



$13,980,687.43 
13,066,461.15 

111,990.00 
1,401,413.63 



$58,734,456.25 
52,066,689.80 



1,200,653.00 
7,745,196,19 



31,836,138.21 



132,281,701.65 



28,560,552.21 



119,746,995,24 



EXPENDITUEES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$7,660,742.67 
3,515,426.40 
1,844,464.37 
1,332,315.81 

11,682,410.59 

693,288 00 
5,152,602.34 


$34,723,248.18 

15,680,528.27 

8,839,325 95 

3,279,379.59 

52,049,924.31 

2,974,619.50 
12,777,582.26 


$8,983,729.89 

'2,281,916.60 

2,383,305.58 

850,858.99 

10,976,593.69 

1,221,457.50 
5,174,405.77 


$35,424,927.70 
15,619,073.55 


Navy 


9,945,339.62 
4,211,286.61 


Pensions 

National- b ank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account . . 


36,417,859.40 

5,788,374.50 
8,880,000.63 


Premium . . 














Total 


31,881,250.18 


130,324,608,06 


31,872,268.02 


116,286,859.91 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending Jtme 30, 
1892, 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




Month of No- 
vember, 1892. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 


Month of No- 
vember, 1891. 


Since July 1, 
1890. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous, . , . 


$14,269,379.94 
13,050,706.64 

64,750.00 
1,419,808.80 


$84,267,893.35 
69,769,861.09 

1,456,893.00 
7,146,322.28 


$12,659,039.01 
12,480,326.54 

114,275.00 
1,663,522.17 


$71,885,786.19 
64,630,234.87 

1,314,928.00 
9,981,352.62 


Total 


28,794,645.38 


162,640,969.72 


26,917,162.72 


147,812,301.58 



EiXPBNDITUKES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$7,796,814.98 

4,751,186.70 

2,736,096.15 

559,822.47 

13,431,871.00 

1,108,104.50 
364,986.98 


$42,520,063.16 

20,431,714.97 

11,675,422.10 

3,839,202.06 

65,481,795.31 

4,082,724.00 
13,142,569.24 


$6,072,845.14 
4,055,177.22 
2,684,497.01 
1,200,684.31 

11,783,598.71 

1,754,954.50 
359,246.41 


$41,497,772.84 
19,674,248.77 




12,629,836.63 


Indians 


6,411,970.92 


Pensions 

National-ban k 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 


48,200,458.1 1 

7,543,329.00 
9,239,245.94 


Premium 














Total 


30,748,882.78 


161,073,490.84 


27,911,002.30 


144.196,862.21 



APPENDICITIS. 



265 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 





Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1891. 




Month of De- 
cember, 1891. 


Since July 1 , 
1891. 


Month of De- 
cember, 1890. 


Since July 1 , 
1890. 


Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-ban k 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous.... 


$16,308,334.25 
14,843,836.27 

145,947.50 
1,914,793.08 


$100,576,227.60 
84,613,697.36 

1,602,840.50 
9,061,115.36 


$13,836,555.64 
12,427,046.73 

286,470.00 
1,382,913.36 


$85,722,341.83 
77,057,281.60 

1,601,398.00 
11,364,265.88 


Total 


33,212,911.10 


195,853,880.82 


27,932,985.73 


175,745,287.31 



BXPKNDITUKES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War . . . 


$8,675,317.07 
5,726,440.98 
2,547,072.71 
1,293,256.59 

14,9^2,108.41 

817,124.00 
275,803.82 


$51,195,380.23 

26,158,155.95 

14,122,494.81 

5,132,4.'>8.65 

80,423,903.72 

4,899,848.00 
13,418,373.06 




$8,342,679.75 
5,102,456.59 
2,427,108.04 
1,086.004.54 

13,140,769.05 

1,397,162.00 
325.708.80 


$49,840,452.59 
24,776,705.36 




15,056,945.57 


Indians 


6,497,975 46 


Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 


61,341,227.16 

8,940,491.00 
9,564,954.74 


Premium 














Total 


34,277,123.58 


195,350,614.42 


31,821,889 67 


176,018,751.88 



Source. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1893. 


Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 




Month of Jan- 
uary, 1893. 


Since July 1, 
1892. 


Month of Jan- 
uary, 1892. 


Since July 1, 
1891. 




$21,102,476.50 
12,052,917.57 

206,920.00 
1,847,658.24 


$121,678,704.10 
96,666,614.93 

1,809,760.50 
10,908,773.60 


$17,459,285.74 
11,439,956.70 

159,250.00 
1,484,236.16 


$103,181,627.57 


Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund . . 

Miscellaneous 


88,497,238.30 

1,760,648.00 
12,848,502.04 


Total 


35,209,972.31 


231,063,853.13 


30,542,728.60 


206,288,015.91 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous 

War 


$10,451,683.25 

4,270,785.65 

2,319,309.60 

1,167,567.03 

13,038,270.40 

901,929.50 
7,103,836.25 


$61,590,496.33 

30,429,290.74 

16,441,957.41 

6,299,421.36 

93,471,182.00 

5,801,777.50 
20,521,935.31 


$9,473,706.04 

4,067,179.34 

2,489,355.26 

950,365.05 

10,521,941.40 

1,488,172.50 
6,672,801.01 


$59,271,930.22 
28,842,751.63 
17 545 431 60 


Navy 


Indians 


7,448,175.76 


Pensions 

National -b ank 
fimd, redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 


^71,871,961.23 

10,428,663.50 
16,238,680.75 














Total 


39,253,381.68 


234,556,060.65 


35,663,522.60 


211,647,594.69 



266 



APPENDICES. 



Comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United 
States — Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 



Source. 



Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1893. 



Month of Feb- 
ruary, 1893. 



Since July 1, 
1892. 



Fiscal year ending June 30, 
1892. 



Month of Feb- 
ruary, 1892. 



Since July 1, 
1891. 



Customs 

Internal revenue 

National-bank 

deposit fund. . 

Miscellaneous 



$16,936,395.28 
11;316,832.14 

311,750.00 
1,444,914.81 



$138,615,099.38 
107,983,447.07 

2,121,510.50 
12,353,688.41 



$16,782,419.95 
12,189,387.36 



56,960.00 
1,727,137.26 



$119,896,874.59 
101,157,232.47 



1,817,608.00 
15,220,016.16 



Total. 



30,009,892.23 



261,073,745.36 



30,755,904.57 



238,091,731.22 



EXPENDITURES. 



Civil and miscel- 
laneous. 

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund, redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 



Total. 



$9,322,334.69 
3,665,027.94 
2,836,969.00 
1,225,054.07 

13,494,663.26 



811,181.00 
322,224.04 



31.677,454.00 



$70,912,831.02 

34,094,318.68 

19,278,926.41 

7,524,475.43 

106,965,845.26 



6,612,958.50 
20,844,159.35 



266,233,514.65 



$8,223,430.67 

3,072,548.00 

1,852,926.67 

487,763.85 

11,561,447.31 



1,519,333,50 
764,609.13 



27,482 059.13 



$67,495,360.89 

31,915,299.63 

19,398,358.27 

7,935,939.61 

83,433,408.54 



11,947.997.00 
17,003,289.88 



239,129,653,82 



APPENDICES. 267 



APPENDIX C. 

YEA AND NAY VOTES ON PARTY QUESTIONS. 
REMARKS. 

Several important measures were passed at the last session of 
Congress without a division because they did not involve party 
questions. This is true of the free alcohol bill, the consular re- 
form bill and the naturalization bill. 

The Panama canal bill involved only a question of engineering, 
and hence the votes on it were not divided on party lines. Both 
Republicans and Democrats declared for the Nicaragua Canal in 
1892. 

WAS A NON-PARTISAN MEASURE. 

The pure food bill — 18 Democrats voted for it and only 4 
against it. On the final passage of the Railroad Rate bill, there 
was no yea-and-nay vote in the House of Representatives. 
(Record, June 11, 1906, p. 8781.) Democrats and Republicans 
alike voted for the bill after the Senate had amended it, though 
the Democrats thought it still an imperfect bill. Many Democrats 
tried to amend and perfect the bill when it first passed the House. 
The Democrats also voted for the Statehood bill after it had been 
properly amended in the Senate. The meat inspection amend- 
ment to the Agricultural appropriation bill was also passed with- 
out a yea-and-nay vote. The Democrats^ favored the inspection 
of meats, but insisted that the packers should pay the cost to 
police their wrongdoing, while the Republicans insisted that the 
Government should pay it, and provided for such payment by 
the law as it passed. 

The real contests of the session occurred on the several amend- 
ments to the Railroad Rate bill, the Foraker amendment to the 
Statehood bill, the bill to pay the traveling expenses of the 
President, the resolution restricting the purchase of material and 
equipment for the construction of the Panama canal to domestic 
products, the ratification of executive usurpations, the ship sub- 
sidy bill, and the amendment to the urgent deficiency bill abolish- 
ing the eight hour law as to the Panama canal. The votes on 
these party issues are given in detail below: 

YEA AND NAY VOTES IN THE SENATE. 

On Ship Subsidy, Statehood (Foraker Amendment), Railroads, 

Panama Canal Supplies, and President's Traveling Expenses 

and Ratification of Executive Usurpations. 

THE SHIP SUBSIDY BILL. 

On February 14, 1906, the Senate passed the bill (S. 529) "to 
promote the national defenses, to create a force of naval volun- 
teers, to establish American ocean mail lines to foreign markets, 



268 



APPENDICES. 



to promote commerce, and to provide revenue from tonnage." 
This is the title of the ship subsidy bill. Thirty-eight Republi- 
cans voted for it, while 23 Democrats and 4 Republicans (Burkett, 
Dolliver, La Follette and Spooner) voted against it. The vote 
in detail was as follows: 







Yeas— 


-38. 




Aldrich 


Clark, Wyo. 


Gamble 


Long 


Piatt 


Allee 


Crane 


Hale 


McCumber 


Scott 


Allison 


Dick 


Hansbrough 


Millard 


Smoot 


Ankeny 


Dryden 


Hemenway 


Nelson 


Sutherland 


Brandegee 


Foraker 


Heyburn 


Nixon 


Warren 


Burnham 


Frye 


Hopkins 


Penrose 


Wetmore 


Burrows 


Fulton 


Kean 


Perkins 




Carter 


Gallinger 


Lodge 

Nays— 


Piles 
-27. 




Bacon 


Dolliver 


Latimer 


Patterson 


Taliaferro 


Blackburn 


Dubois 


McCreary 


Pettus 


Teller 


Burkett 


Foster 


McLaurin 


Rayner 


Warner 


Clarke, Ark. 


Fraizer 


Morgan 


Simmons 




Clay 


Gearin 


Newlands 


Spooner 




Daniel 


Lr. Follette 


Overman 


Stone 








Not Voting — 24. 




Alger 


Burton 


Cullom 


Gorman 


Martin 


Bailey 


Carmack 


Depew 


Kittridge 


Money 


Berry 


Clapp 


Dillingham 


Knox 


Proctor 


Beveridge 


Clark, Mont. 


Elkins 


McBnery 


Tillman 


Bulkeley 


Culberson 


Flint 


Mallory 





Of those not voting Bailey, Clark of Montana, Martin, Money and 
Tillman ( Democrats ) , against the bill, were paired with Alger, Bever- 
idge, Cullom, Dillingham and Elkins (Republicans) for it. (See 
Cong. Record, pp. 2536-7.) 

STATEHOOD BILL (FORAKER AMENDMENT). 

On March 9, 1906, when the Statehood bill (H. R. 12707) was 
under consideration. Senator Foraker (Republican) offered the 
following amendment: 



"Sec. 23. That within thirty days after the approval of this act the 
governors of the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona, respectively, 
shall each by proclamation order a special election to be held on the 
twelfth Tuesday after the approval of this act. Said elections shall 
be conducted in all respects, including the qualifications and registra- 
tion of voters, and the result ascertained and certified as near as prac- 
ticable in accordance with the laws of said Territories, respectively, 
governing the election of a Delegate in Congress. The sole question 
to be submitted to the electors of each of said Territories at such spe- 
cial election shall be stated on the ballot in substance and form as 
follows : 

"Shall Arizona and New Mexico be united to form one State? 



f ] Yes. 



No. 



"Electors desiring to answer in the affirmative shall place a cross 
mark in the square to the left of the word 'Yes,' and those desiring 
to answer in the negative shall place a cross-mark in the square to the 
left of the word 'No' in the form above prescribed. The governors of 
the respective territories shall certify and transmit, as soon as may be 
practicable, the results of said election each to the other and likewise 
to the Secretary of the Interior, and if it appears from the returns 
thus certified that a majority of the electors in each of said Territories 



APPENDICES. 



269 



who voted at such special election voted in favor of the union of New 
Mexico and Arizona as one State, then, and not otherwise, the in- 
habitants of that part of the area of the United States now consti- 
tuting tlie Territories of Arizona and New Mexico as at present de- 
scribed may become the State of Arizona as hereinafter provided; but 
if in either of said Territories a majority of the electors voting at such 
special election shall appear by such certiJEied returns to have voted 
against the union of said Territories, then, and in that event, all 
succeeding sections of this act shall thereafter be null and void and of 
no effect." (Cong. Record, p. 3657.) 

Twenty-four Democrats and 18 Republicans voted for this 
amendment, while 29 Republicans voted against it. The vote in 
detail was as follows: 







Yeas- 


-42. 




Alger 


Culberson 


Galllnger 


Morgan 


Spooner 


Bacon 


Daniel 


Gearin 


Newlands 


Stone 


Blackburn 


Dryden 


Hansbrough 


Nixon 


Sutherland 


Bulkeley 


Dubois 


Heyburn 


Patterson 


Taliaferro 


Bur-'cws 


Flint 


Latimer 


Perkins 


Teller 


Carter 


Foraker 


McCreary 


Pettus 


Tillman 


Clark, Mont. 


Foster 


McCumber 


Rayner 




Clark, Wyo. 


Frazier 


Mallory 


Scott 




Clay 


Fulton 


Martin 

Nats— 


Simmons 
29. 




Allee 


Clapp 


Gamble 


LaFollette 


Piles 


Allison 


Crane 


Hale 


Lodge 


Proctor 


Ankeny 


Cullom 


Hemenway 


Long 


Smoot 


Beveridge 


Dick 


Hopkins 


Millard 


Warner 


Brandegee 


Dillingham 


Kean 


Nelson 


Wetmore 


Burnham 


Dolliver 


Knox 

Not Voting 


Penrose 

—18. 




Aldrlch 


Burton 


Elkins 


McEnery 


Piatt 


Carmack 


Burkett 


Frye 


McLaurin 


Warren 


Bailey 


Clarke, Ark. 


Gorman 


Money 




Berry 


Depew 


Kittredge 


Overman 





(See Cong. Record, p. 3657.) 

Of those not voting, Bailey, Berry, Gorman, McEnery, McLaurin, 
Money, Overman (Democrats), and Piatt (Republican), were paired 
for the amendment; while Burkett, Depew, Elkins, Frye, Kittredge, 
Nelson and Warren (Republicans), and Clarke, of Arkansas (Demo- 
crat) were paired against it. 



ON THE BAILEY AMENDMENT TO THE RAILROAD RATE 

BILL. 

On May 10, 1906, Senator Bailey, of Texas, offered the following 
amendment to the Railroad Rate bill (H. R. 12987) : 



"Provided, however, That no order of the Commission shall be set 
aside or suspended by any preliminary or interlocutory decree or order 
of any court or judge." (Cong. Record, p. 6873.) 



270 



APPENDICES. 



On this amendment 20 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Burkett, 
Hale and La Follette) voted yea. The vote in detail was as 
follows : 



Bailey Dubois 

Berry Foster 

Blackburn Fraizer 

Clarke, Ark. Gearin 

Clay Latimer 



Yeas — 23. 
McCreary Rayner Burkett 

McEnery Simmons Hale 

McLaurin Stone LaFollette 

Martin Teller 

Overman Tillman 







Nats— 


■54. 




Aldrich 


Clapp 


Fulton 


McCumber 


Sutherland 


Alger 


Clark, Wyo. 


Gallingor 


Millard 


Warner 


Allee 


Crane 


Gamble 


Nelson 


Wetmore 


Allison 


Cullom 


Hansbrough 


Nixon 


Clark, Mont 


Ankeny 


Dillingham 


Hemenway 


Penrose 


Culberson 


Bacon 


Dolliver 


Hopkins 


Perkins 


Daniel 


Beveridge 


Dryden 


Kean 


Piles 


Morgan 


Brandegee 


Elkins 


Kittredge 


Piatt 


Newlands 


Bulkeley 


Flint 


Knox 


Scott 


Pettus 


Burrows 


Foraker 


Lodge 


Smoot 


Taliaferro 


Carter * 


Frye 


Long 


Spooner 




-- 




Not Voting — 12. 




Burnham 


Dick 


Warren 


Gorman 


Money 


Burton 


Heyburn 


Carmack 


Mallory , 


Patterson 


Depew 


Proctor 









(Cong. Eecord, p. 6874.) 

Of those not voting, Dick, Proctor and Warren (Republicans), were 
paired against the amendment, and Carmack, Mallory and Money 
(Democrats), for it. 

CULBERSON AMENDMENT. 

On May 11, 1906 (Cong. Record, p. 6874), the following amend- 
ment was offered by Mr. Culberson, of Texas: 



"Provided, That if such rate so fixed by the Commission is in viola- 
tion of the rights of any party in interest secured by the Constitution of 
the United States the party so affected may proceed against the Com- 
mission by appropriate proceedings in equity in any circuit court of 
the United States of competent jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement 
of such order and rate: Provided, further, That in determining what 
is a just and reasonable rate no consideration shall be given fictitious 
stock issued by the carrier, or bonds or other obligations of the car- 
rier, issued in excess of the fair value of its property: Provided, fur- 
ther, That no circuit or other court of the United States, and no judge 
thereof in vacation, shall annul, restrain, enjoin, or otherwise inter- 
fere with the enforcement or operation of a rate and order established 
and made by the Interstate Commerce Commission provided for in 
this act until a petition, declaration, bill of complaint, or other proper 
statement of the cause of action is filed in said court or presented to 
said judge in vacation and the Interstate Commerce Commission is 
duly and legally served with a copy thereof at least ten days prior to 
any action taken by the court or judge thereon and until said Com- 
mission has had opportunity within said ten days to answer by proper 
pleadings and present testimony in like form as the complainants 
therein: Provided, further. That in such proceedings either party to 
the suit may appeal immediately and directly to the Supreme Court 
of the United States from the final decree therein, or from any inter- 
locutory or preliminary restraining order therein, whether granted 
during the term or in vacation, by which the rate and order so estab- 
lished and made by the Commission is enjoined in whole or in part: 
Provided, further, That said appeal must be taken within thirty days 
from the entry of such order or decree, and said case so appealed shall 



APPEI^DIGSS. 



211 



be advanced and take precedence in the Supreme Court of all cases of 
a different character therein : Provided, further, That the circuit court, 
or the judge thereof, or the Supreme Court, or any justice thereof, 
may direct that the final decree or the interlocutory or preliminary 
restraining order, from which an appeal is taken, shall be stayed dur- 
ing the pendency of such appeal." 

Twenty-eight Democrats and one Republican (La Follette) 
voted for this amendment, while 50 Republicans voted against it. 
The following is the vote in detail : 







Yeas— 


-29. 




Bacon 


Culberson 


LaFollette 


Money 


Simmons 


Berry 


Daniel 


Latimer 


Morgan 


Stone 


Blackburn 


Dubois 


McCreary 


Newlands 


Taliaferro 


Clark, Mont 


Foster 


McEnery 


Overman 


Teller 


Clarke, Ark 


Frazier 


McLaurin 


Pettus 


Tillman 


Clay 


Gearin 


Martin 

Nays— 


Rayner 
50. 




Aldrlch 


Burrows 


Elkins 


Hopkins 


Penrose 


Alger 


Carter 


Flint 


Kean 


Perkins 


Allee 


Clapp 


Foraker 


Kittredge 


Piles 


Allison 


Clark, Wyo. 


Frye 


Knox 


Piatt 


Ankeny 


Crane 


Fulton 


Lodge 


Scott 


Beveridge 


Cullom 


Gallinger 


Long 


Smoot 


Brandegee 


Dick 


Gamble 


McCumber 


Sutherland 


Bulkeley 


Dillingham 


Hale 


Millard 


Warner 


Burkett 


Dolliver 


Hansbrougli 


Nelson 


Warren 


Burnham 


Dryden 


Hemenway 


Nixon 


Wetmore 






Not Voting — 10. 




Bailey 


Carmack 


Gorman 


Mallory 


Proctor 


Burton 


Depew 


Heyburn 


Patterson 


Spooner 



(Cong. Record, p. 6875.) 

Of those not voting, Carmack, Gorman and Mallory were paired for 
the amendment, with Spooner, Depew and Proctor against it. 



LA FOLLETTE'S AMENDMENT TO SECURE DISINTER- 
ESTED ADJUDICATIONS. 

On May 12, 1906 (Cong. Record, p. 6973), Senator La Follette 
offered the following amendment to the Allison amendment which 
provided for a broad court review: 

"Every Federal judge who owns any share of the capital stock or 
any of the bonds of a common carrier subject to the provisions of 
this act, or who accepts or uses, or who procures for the use of any 
person, any pass or privilege for transportation withheld from any 
other person, is hereby disqualified and prohibited from hearing or 
passing upon as such judge any motion, question, application, pro- 
ceeding, or from presiding at or hearing any trial arising under the 
provisions of this act." 



Forty Republicans voted to lay this amendment on the table — 
to kill it — while 25 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Gallinger and 



272 



APPENDICES. 



La Follette) voted against the 


motion to table it. The vote 


stood : 




Yeas- 


-40. 




Aldrich 


Burrows 


Dryden 


Hansbrough 


Perkins 


Alger 


Carter 


Elkins 


Hopkins 


Piles 


Allee 


Clapp 


Flint 


Kean 


Scott 


Allison 


Clark, Wyo. 


Foraker 


Kittredge 


Smoot 


Ankeny 


Cu.Uom 


Frye 


Lodge 


Spooner 


Brandegee 


Dick 


Fulton 


Long 


Sutherland 


Bulkeley 


ijiliingliam 


Gamble 


Millard 


Warner 


Burnham 


Dolliver 


Hale 

Nays- 


Nixon 

-27. 


Wetmore 


Bacon 


Culberson 


Gearin 


Morgan 


Taliaferro 


Bailey 


Daniel 


LaFollette 


Newlands 


Teller 


Berry 


Dubois 


McCreary 


Overman 


Tillman 


Blackburn 


Foster 


McCumber 


Rayner 




Clarke, Ark. 


Prazier 


McLaurin 


Simmons 




Clay 


Gallinger 


Martin 


Stone 








Not Voting— 22. 




Beveridge 


Crane 


Knox 


Nelson 


Proctor 


Burkett 


Depew 


uatimer 


Patterson 


Warren. 


Burton 


Gorman 


McEnery 


Penrose 




Carmack 


Hemenway 


Mallory 


Pettus 




Clark, Mont. 


Heyburn 


Money 


Piatt 





(Cong. Record, p. 6973.) 

Of those not voting, Proctor and Warren were paired with' Mallory 
and Money. 

VOTE ON MORGAN AMENDMENT RELATING TO RIGHT TO 
SUE IN THE COURTS. 



On May 14, Senator Morgan, Democrat, of Alabama, offered the 
following amendment: 

"That nothing in this act contained shall be construed as depriving 
any person who sues in his own right and name from instituting any 
suit under its provisions, or any other suit, at law or in equity, in 
any State court, or in any court of the United States, against any 
common carrier." (Cong. Record, p. 7017.) 

Twenty-one Democrats and 2 Republicans (Piatt and Scott) 
voted for this amendment, while 40 Republicans and 1 Democrat 
voted against it. The vote in detail was as follows: 







Yeas— 


23. 




Berry 


Daniel 


Latimer 


Morgan 


Simmons 


Blackburn 


Dubois 


McEnery 


Pettus 


Taliaferro 


Bulkeley 


Foster 


McLaurin 


Piatt 


Tillman 


Clark, Mont. 


Frye 


Mallory 


Rayner 




Clay 


Gearin 


Martin 


Scott 






^ 


Nays— 


-41. 




Aldrich 


Carter 


Flint 


Kittredge 


Piles 


Alger 


Clapp 


Foraker 


Knox 


Proctor 


Allee 


Clarke, Ark. 


Fulton 


Lodge 


Sutherland 


Allison 


Crane 


Gallinger 


Long 


Warner 


Ankeny 


Cullom 


Gamble 


McCumber 


Wetmore 


Brandegee 


Dick 


Hansbrough 


Millard 




Burkett 


Dillingham 


Hemenway 


Nelson 




Burnham 


Dolliver 


Hopkins 


Nixon 




Burrows 


Dryden 


Kean 


Perkins 





APPENDICES. 



273 



Not Voting — 25. 



Bacon Clark, Wyo. Gorman 

Bailey Culberson Hale 

Beveridge Depew Heyburn 

Burton Elkins LaFollette 

Carmack Prazler McCreary 



Money Smoot 

Newlands Spooner 

Overman Stone 

Patterson Teller 

Penrose Warren 



(Cong. Eecord, p. 7017.) 
Of those not voting, Spooner was paired against, and Carmack for it. 

LA FOLLETTE AMENDMENT REGARDING VALUATION OF 
RAILROAD PROPERTY. 

On May 14, 1906, Senator La Follette offered the following 
amendment: 



"Section 7a. That section 19 of said act be amended by adding 
thereto a new section to be known as section 19a, and to read as 
follows : 

" 'Section 19a. The Commission shall investigate and ascertain 
the fair value of tlie property of every railroad engaged in interstate 
commerce, as defined in this act, and used by it for the convenience 
of the public. For the purpose of such investigation the Commission 
is authorized to employ such engineers, experts, and other assistants 
as m;'y be necessary. Such investigation shall be commenced not 
Inter tlian July 1, 1906, and shall be prosecuted with diligence and 
thornngliiiess and the results thereof reported to Congress at the 
bogimiipg of each regular session. Such valuation shall show the 
va'ue of the property of every railroad as a whole, and the value of 
its property in each of the several States or Territories or the 
District of Columbia. Every such railroad shall furnish to the 
Commission, from time to time, and as the Commission may require, 
maps, profiles, contracts, reports of engineers, and other documents, 
records, and papers, or copies of any or all of the same, in aid of 
such investigation and determination of the value of said railroad 
and every such railroad is required to cooperate with the Commission 
in the work of the valuation of its property in such further particulars 
and to such extent as the Commission may direct. 

" 'The Commission shall, thereafter, in like manner, keep itself, 
informed of all extensions and improvements or other changes in the 
conditions of the property of the said railroads, and ascertain the fair 
value thereof, and from time to time, as may be required for the 
regulation of railways under the provisions of this act, revise and 
correct its valuation of raihvay property. To enable the Commission 
to make such changes and corrections in its valuation^ every railroad 
engaged in interstate commerce, as defined in this act, is required to 
report currently to the Commission, and as the Commission may 
require, all improvements and changes in its property, and to file 
with the Commission copies of all contracts for such improvements 
at the time the same are executed. 

" 'Whenever the Commission shall have completed the valuation of 
the property of any railroad, and before said valuation shall become 
final, the Commission shall give notice by registered letter, to the 
company or companies owning or operating said railroad, stating the 
valuation placed upon the several lines of road and classes of property 
of the said company, used by it for the convenience of the public, and 
shall allow the company or companies twenty days in which to file a 
protest of the same with tlie Commission. If no protest is filed, 
within twenty days, such valuation shall become final. 

" 'If notice of contest is filed by any railroad the Commission shall 
fix a time for hearing the same, and shall proceed as promptly as 
may be to hear and consider any matter relative and material thereto 
presented by such railroad in support of its protest so filed as afore- 



274 



APPENDICES. 



said. If after hearing any contest of such valuation imder the pro- 
visions of this act, the Commission is of the opinion that its 
valuation is incorrect, it shall make such changes as shall make the 
same a fair valuation of such property, and shall issue an order 
making such corrected valuation final. All final valuations by the 
Commission shall be prima facie evidence of the fair value of the 
railroad property in all proceedings under this act.' " ( Cong. 
Record, p. 7011.) 

Thirty-nine Republicans and one Democrat voted to lay this 
amendment on the table, while 22 Democrats and 5 Republicans 
(Elkins, Burkett, La Follette, Gamble and Warner) voted against 
the motion to table. The vote in detail as it stands in the Con- 
gressional Record, p. 7014, is as follows: 

Yeas — 40. 



Aldrlch 


Clark, Wyo. 


Frye 


Kittredge 


Nixon 


Alger 


Crane 


Fulton 


Knox 


Penrose 


Allee 


Cullom 


Gallinger 


Lodge 


Perkins 


Ankeny 


Dick 


Hale 


Long 


Piles 


Brandegee 


Dillingham 


Hansbrough 


McCumber 


Piatt 


Bulkeley 


Dryden 


Hemenway 


McEnery 


Scott 


Burnham 


Flint 


Hopkins 


Millard 


Sutherland 


Carter 


Foraker 


Kean 

NAYS— 


Nelson 
27. 


Wetmore 


Bacon 


Clay 


Frazier 


McLaurIn 


Teller 


Bailey 


Culberson 


Gamble 


Mallory 


Tillman 


Berry 


Dolliver 


Gearin 


Newlands 


Warner 


Blackburn 


Dubois 


LaFollette 


Overman 




Burkett 


Elkins 


Latimer 


Simmons 




Clarke, Ark. 


Foster 


McCreary 


Taliaferro 








Not Voting — 22. 




Allison 


Clapp 


Heyburn 


Pettus 


Stone 


Beveridge 


Clark, Mont. 


Martin 


Proctor 


Warren 


Burrows 


Daniel 


Money 


Rayner 




Burton 


Depew 


Morgan 


Smoot 




Carmack 


Gorman 


Patterson 


Spooner 





(Cong. Record, p. 7014.) 

Of those not voting Carmack and Money (Democrats) were paired 
against the motion to table, and Spooner and Warren (Republicans) 
for it. _ 

LA FOLLETTE AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE EMPLOYERS' 
LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES. 

On May 14, Senator La Follette offered the following amend- 
ment: 



"Section 20 (a). That every common carrier by railroad subject 
to the provisions of this act shall be liable for damages for all 
injuries, whether resulting in death or not, sustained by any of its 
employees, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained regarding 
contributory negligence on the part of the injured employee: 

"a. When such injury is caused by a defect in any locomotive, 
engine, car, rail, track, roadbed, machinery, or appliance required 
by said common carrier to be used by its employed in and about the 
business of their employment. 

"b. When such injury shall have been sustained by any officer, 
agent, servant, or employee of such common carrier while engaged in 
the line of his duty as such and which injury shall have been caused 



APPENDICES. 



275 



in whole or in greater part by the carelessness or negligence of any- 
other employee, officer, agent, or servant of such common carrier in 
the discharge of or by reason of failure to discharge his duties as such. 
"In every action to recover damages for such injuries or death the 
court shall submit to the jury the question whether the employee 
injured or killed was guilty of contributory negligence and shall 
instruct the jury that if they shall answer such question in the 
affirmative, that they shall then answer the following question : Was 
the negligence of the employee injured (or killed) slighter or greater 
as a contributing cause to such injury (or death) that the negligence 
or carelessness of the common carrier, or any other officer, agent, or 
employee of such common carrier? And in all cases where the jury 
shall find the carelessness or negligence of the common carrier, or any 
other officer, agent, employee, of such common carrier, was greater 
than the negligence of the employee so injured or killed and con- 
tributed in a greater degree to such injury or death, then the plaintiff 
shall be entitled to recover, and the negligence, if any, of the employee 
so injured or killed shall be no bar to such recovery, and in all cases 
under this act the questions of negligence and contributory negligence 
shall be for the jury." (Cong. Eecord, p. 7017.) 

Twenty-three Democrats and 5 Republicans (Burkett, Fulton, 
Gamble, Kittredge and La Follette) voted for this amendment, 
while 42 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted against it. The 
vote in detail was as follows: 







Yeas— 


-28. 




Bacon 


Clay 


Gamble 


Mallory 


Stone 


Bailey 


Culberson 


Gearin 


Morgan 


Taliaferro 


Berry 


Daniel 


Kittredge 


Newlands 


Teller 


Blackburn 


Dubois 


LaFollette 


Overman 




Burkett 


Frazier 


Latimer 


Rayner 




Clarke, Ark. 


Ful'ton 


McCreary 

Nays— 


Simmons 
-45. 




Aldrich 


Clapp 


Flint 


Long 


Pettus 


Allee 


Clark, Wyo. 


Foraker 


McCumber 


Piles 


Alger 


Crane 


Frye 


McEnery 


Piatt 


Allison 


Cullom 


Gallinger 


McLaurin 


Proctor 


Ankeny 


Dick 


Hansbrough 


Millard 


Scott 


Brandegee 


Dillingham 


Hopkins 


Nelson 


Smoot 


Bulkeley 


Dolliver 


Kean 


Nixon 


Sutherland 


Burnham 


Dryden 


Knox 


Penrose 


Warner 


Carter 


Elkins 


Lodge 


Perkins 


Wetmore 






Not Voting — 16. 




Beverldge 


Clark, Mont. 


Gorman 


Heyburn 


Spooner 


Burrows 


Depew 


Hale 


Money 


Tillman 


Burton 


Foster 


Hemenway 


Patterson 


Warren 


Carmack 











(Cong. Record, p. 7027.) 

Of those not voting, Carmack and Money were paired for the amend- 
ment, and Spooner and Warren against it. 

ON THE ALDRICH RESOLUTION. 

Purchase of Material and Equipment for the Panama Canal. 

On June 2, 1906, the Senate passed the following joint resolu- 
tion (S. R. 60): 



"Resolved, etc., That purchase of material arid equipment for use 
in the construction of the Panama Canal shall be restricted to 
articles of domestic production and manufacture unless the President 



276 



APPENDICES. 



deems the bids tlierefor to be extortionate or unreasonable, in which 
case bids may be invited and contracts awarded for material and 
equipment of foreign production or manufacture to the extent of the 
consumption of such articles that may be required in the construction 
of said canal." (Cong. Record, p. 7957.) 

Thirty-nine Republicans voted for this resolution, while 16 
Democrats voted against it. The vote in detail was as follows: 







Yeas— 


-39. 




Aldrich 


Carter 


Foraker 


LaFolIette 


Spooner 


Ankeny 


Clapp 


Frye 


Lodge 


Sutherland 


Beveridge 


Clark, Wyo. 


Fulton 


Long 


Teller 


Brandegee 


Cullom 


Gallinger 


McCumber 


Warner 


Bulkeley 


Dick 


Hale 


Millard 


Warren 


Burkett 


Dillingham 


Hansbrough Perkins 


Wetmore 


Burnham 


Dolliver 


Kean 


Piles 




Burrows 


Flint 


Kittredge 


Scott 








Not Voting — 34. 




Bacon 


Daniel 


Martin 


Rayner 




Bailey 


Dubois 


Money 


Simmons 




Clay 


Frazier 


Overman 


Stone 




Culberson 


McCreary 


Patterson 

Nays— 


Taliaferro 
-16. 




Alger 


Clark, Mont. 


Gamble 


Latimer 


Nixon 


Allee 


Clarke, Ark 


Gearin 


McBnery 


Penrose 


Allison 


Crane 


Gorman 


McLaurin 


Pettus 


Barry 


Depew 


Hemenway 


Mallory 


Piatt 


Blackburn 


Dryden 


Heyburn 


Morgan 


Proctor 


Burton 


Elkins 


Hopkins 


Nelson 


Tillman 


Carmack 


Foster 


Knox 


Newlands 





(See Cong. Record, p. 7959.) 

Of those not voting, Foster, Mallory, Morgan, Carmack, Tillman and 
Latimer (Democrats) were paired against the resolution, and Pen- 
rose, Proctor, Allison, Heyburn, Piatt and Hopkins ( Republicans ) 
for it. 



On the same day, June 2, 1906, Senator Bacon offered the follow- 
ing amendment to the Aldrich resolution: 

"Provided, That in making said purchases a larger price shall not 
be paid for any such article of domestic production or manufacture 
than the price at which the same or similar articles of domestic pro- 
duction or manufacture are sold or offered for sale in foreign markets 
or for export to foreign countries; and for the ascertainm.ent of the 
prices at which articles are sold or offered for sale in foreign countries 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor is hereby directed to procure, 
so far as practicable, and to report to the President the following 
information : 

"First. What articles and classes of goods produced or manufac- 
tured in the United States such as are required as material and 
equipment in the construction of the Panama Canal have during the 
year ending December 31, 1905, been sold or offered for sale in foreign 
countries or for export to foreign countries by the producers or 
manufacturers thereof, or through their representatives or agents, 
at prices less than the same and similar articles and classes of goods 
were during the same period sold in the United States by the pro- 
ducers or manufacturers thereof, or through their representatives or 
agents, having special reference in said report to all classes of tools, 
machinery, steel rails, cars, engines, dredges, vehicles, cement, and other 
material largely and principally required in the construction of said 
canal and in the maintenance, equipment and operation of the Panama 
Railroad. 



APPENDICES. 



277 



"Second. What, separately stated as to each class of goods and with 
specification of articles so far as practicable, was the general average 
during the said period of the comparative prices in sales in the United 
States and in the several foreign countries. 

"The Secretary of Commerce and Labor is further directed to make 
said reports as soon as practicable, and thereafter in the year 1907 
and in each succeeding year during the continuance of the construc- 
tion of said canal it shall be his duty to procure the said information 
and to report to the President concerning said sales in the United 
States and in foreign countries during the calendar year next pre- 
ceding the said report." (See Congressional Record, p. 7943.) 

Fifteen Democrats voted for this amendment and 7 were paired 
for it, while 37 Republicans voted, and 7 were paired, against it. 
The vote in detail was as follows: 



Yeas — 15. 



Bacon 


Dubois 


Latimer 


Overman 


Simmons 


Clay 


Frazier 


McCreary 


Patterson 


Stone 


Culberson 


LaFollette 


Money 

Nays— 


Rayner 
37. 


Taliaferro 


Aldrich 


Carter 


Frye 


Long 


Sutherland 


Ankeny 


Clapp 


Fulton 


Millard 


Teller 


Beveridge 


Clark, Wyo. 


Gallinger 


Nelson 


Warner 


Brandegee 


Dick 


Hale 


Perkins 


Warren 


Bulkeley 


Dillingham 


Hansbrough 


Piles 


Wetmore 


Burkett 


Dolliver 


Kean 


Scott 




Burnham 


Flint 


Kittredge 


Smoot 




Burrows 


Foraker 


Knox 
Not VoTI^ 


Spooner 
G— 37. 




Alger 


Clark, Mont. 


Foster 


McCumber 


Penrose 


Allee 


Clarke, Ark. 


Gamble 


McEnery 


Pettus 


Allison 


Crane 


Gearin 


McLaurin 


Piatt 


Bailey 


Cullom 


Gorman 


Mallory 


Proctor 


Berry 


Daniel 


Hemenway 


Martin 


Tillman 


Blackburn 


Depew 


Heyburn 


Morgan 




Burton 


Dryden 


Hopkins 


Newlands 




Carmack 


Elkins 


Lodge 


Nixon 





(See Congressional Record, p. 7952.) 

Of those not voting, Mallory, Martin, Berry, Pettus, Carmack, 
Foster and Gearin (Democrats) were paired for the amendment; and 
Heyburn, Cullom, Dryden, Crane, McCumber and Lodge (Repub- 
licans) against it. 

VOTE ON THE BILL (H. R. 20,321) TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE PRESIDENT. 

On June 22 the Senate passed the following bill: 



"Be it enacted, etc., That hereafter there may be expended for or 
on account of the traveling expenses of the President of the United 
States such sum as Congress may from time to time appropriate, 
not exceeding $25,000 per annum, such sum when appropriated to 
be expended in the discretion of the President and accounted for on 
his certificate solely. 

"There is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, for the purposes authorized by this act 
for the fiscal year 1907, the sum of $25,000." (Cong. Record, p. 9224.) 



278 



APPENDICES. 



Forty-two Republicans voted for this bill and 20 Democrats 
against it. The vote in detail was as follows: 







Yeas— 42. 




Allee 


Carter 


Gallinger 


LaFollette 


Smoot 


Ankeny 


Clapp 


Gamble 


Lodge 


Spooner 


Benson 


Crane 


Hale 


Long 


Sutherland 


Beveridge 


Cullom 


Hansbrough 


Millard 


Warner 


Brandegee 


Dick 


Hemenway 


Nelson 


Warren 


Bulkeley 


Dillingham 


Heyburn 


Penrose 


Wetmore 


Burkett 


Dolliver 


Hopkins 


Perkins 




Burnham 


Elkins 


Kean 


Piles 




Burrows 


Foraker 


Kittredge 

NAYS— 


Proctor 

-20. 




Bacon 


Carmack 


Latimer 


Mallory 


Pettus 


Bailey 


Clay 


McCreary 


Martin 


Simmons 


Berry 


Daniel 


McCumber 


Overman 


Stone 


Blackburn 


Frazier 


McLaurin 


Patterson 


Taliaferro 






Not Voting — 27. 




Aldrich 


Culberson 


Frye 


Morgan 


Teller 


Alger 


Depew 


Fulton 


Newlands 


Tillman 


Allison . 


Dryden 


Gearin 


Nixon 


Whyte 


Clark, Mont. Dubois 


Knox 


Piatt 




Clark, Wyo. 


Fint 


McEnery 


Rayner 




Clarke, Ark. 


Foster 


Money 


Scott 





(Cong. Record, p. 9238.) 



Of those not voting, Clark, of Mont.; Dubois, Gearin, Money, Mor- 
gan, Newlands, Rayner and Whyte (Democrats) were paired against 
the bill ; Alger, Allison, Clark, of Wyo. ; Dryden, Flint, Frye, Fulton, 
Knox and Nixon (Republicans) for it. 



APPENDICES. 



279 



YEA AND NAY VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 

ON STATEHOOD BILL (H. R. 12,707). 

On January 25, 1906, the House of Representatives passed the 
Hamilton Statehood bill for the admission of Oklahoma and 
Indian Territory jointly as one State, and of New Mexico and 
Arizona jointly as another. The Democrats opposed the bill 
because, while favoring the admission of Oklahoma and Indian 
Territory jointly as one State, they were opposed to forcing joint 
statehood upon New Mexico and Arizona against the wishes of 
the people of those Territories, and favored the plan subsequently 
adopted by the Senate in the Foraker amendment, and finally 
made a part of the bill as it became a law. Many Western Repub- 
licans joined the Democrats in this struggle for fair play — "the 
consent of the governed" — but the administration secured 195 
votes for the measure. The vote in detail was as follows: 







Yeas— 


-195. 




Acheson 


Curtis 


Hamilton 


McCarthy 


Sibley 


Adams, Pa. 


Dale 


Hasklns 


McCleary, 


Smith, 111. 


Alexander 


Dalzell 


Haugen 


Minn. Smith, Iowa. 


Allen, Me. 


Darragh 


Hedge 


McGavin 


Smith, 


Allen, N. J. 


Davis, Minn. 


Henry, Conn.McKinley, 111. Wm, Alden 


Ames 


Dawes 


Hepburn 


McKinney 


Smith, Pa. 


Bannon 


Dawson 


Higglns 


Madden 


Smyser 


Barchfield 


Deemer 


Hill, Conn. 


Mahon 


Southard 


Bartholdt 


Denby 


Hinshaw 


Mann 


Southwick 


Bates 


Dickson, 111. 


Hoar 


Martin 


Sperry 


Bennett, N.Y.Dixon, Mont. Hogg 


Michalek 


Stafford 


Bennett, Ky 


Dovener 


Holiday 


Miller 


Steenerson 


Bingham 


Draper 


Howell, N. 


J. Moon, Pa. 


Snapp 


Birdsall 


Dresser 


Hubbard 


Morrell 


Sterling 


Bishop 


Driscoll 


Huff 


Mouser 


Stevens, 


Blackhurn 


Dunwell 


Hughes 


Murdock 


Minn. 


Boutell 


Dwight 


Hull 


Nevin 


Sulloway 


Bowersock 


Edwards 


Jenkins 


Norris 


Tawney 


Bradley 


Ellis 


Keifer 


Olcott 


Taylor, Ohio 


Brick 


Fassett 


Kennedy, 


Olmsted 


Tirrell 


Brownlow 


Flack 


Neb.Overstreet 


Townsend 


Buckman 


Fletcher 


Kinkaid 


Palmer 


Tyndall 


Burke, Pa. 


Foss 


Klepper 


Parker 


VanWinkle 


Burke, S. Da. Foster, Ind. 


Knapp 


Parsons 


Volstead 


Burleigh 


Foster, Vt. 


Knopf 


Patterson, 


Vreeland 


Burton, Ohio Fowler 


Lacey 


Penn. Waldo 


Butler, Pa. 


Fulkerson 


Lafean 


Payne 


Wanger 


Calder 


Fuller 


Landis 


Pearre 


Watson 


Campbell, 


Gaines, 


Chas. 


B.Perkins 


Webber 


Kansas W. Va.Landis, 


Pollard 


Weeks 


Campbell, 0. 


Gardner, 


Frederick Powers 


Weems 


Capron 


Mass. Law 


Reynolds 


Welborn 


Cassel 


Gardner, 


Lawrence 


Rhodes 


Wharton 


Chaney 


Mich.Lefevre 


Rives 


Wiley, N. J. 


Chapman 


Gardner, N. J. Lilley, Conn. Roberts 


Wilson 


Cocks 


Gilbert, Ind. 


Littauer 


Rodenberg 


Wood, N. J. 


Cole 


Gillett, Mass.i^lttlefleld 


Samuel 


Woodyard 


Connor 


Graff 


Longworth 


Schneebeli 


The Speaker 


Cooper, Pa. 


Greene 


Lorimer 


Scott 




Cooper, Wis 


Gronna 


Loudenslager Scroggy 




Cousins 


Grosvenor 


Lovering 


Shartel 




Currier - 


Hale 


McCall 


Sherman 





280 



APPENDICES. 







Nays- 


-150. 


Adams, Wis 


Fitzgerald 


James 


Mondell Sherley 


Adamson 


Flood 


Johnson 


Moon, Tenn. Sims 


Aiken 


Floyd 


Jones, Va, 


Moore Slayden 


Babcock 


French 


Jones, Wash.Mudd Small 


Bankhead 


Gaines, Tenn.Kahn 


Murphy Smith, Cal. 


Bartlett 


Garner 


Keliher 


Needham Smith, Ky. 


Beall, Tex. 


Gurrett 


Kitchin, 


Padgett Smith, Md. 


Bede 


Gilbert, Ky 


Claude Page Smith, Tex. 


Beidler 


Gill 


Kitchin, 


Patterson, Sparkman 


Bonynge 


Gillespie 


Wm. 


W. N. C.Spight 


Bowers 


Gillett, Cal. 


Kline 


Pou Stanley 


Brently 


Glass 


Knowland 


Pujo Stephens 


Broocks, Tex-Goebel 


Lamb 


Rainey Tex. 


Brown 


Qoldfogle 


Lee 


Randell, Tex. Sullivan, 


Br'undige 


Goulden 


Legare 


Ransdell, La. Mass. 


Burgess 


Granger 


Lester 


Reeder Swanson 


Burleson 


Gregg 


Lever 


Reid Talbott 


Burnett 


Griggs 


Lewis 


Rhinock Taylor, Ala. 


Butler, Tenn.Gudger 


Lindsay 


Richardson, Thomas, N. C. 


Calderhead 


Hay 


Livingston 


Ala. Thomas, 0. 


Candler 


Hayes 


Lloyd 


Richardson, Towne 


Clark, Mo. 


Heflin 


Loud 


Ky. Trimble 


Clayton 


Henry, Tex. 


McCreary, 


Ilixey Underwood 


Cushman 


Hermann 


Pa. Robertson, Wachter 


Davey, La. 


Hopkins 


McKinley, 


La. Wallace 


Davidson 


Houston 


Cal. Robinson, Watkins 


Davis, W. Va. Howard 


McLain 


Ark. Webb 


De Armond 


Howell, UtahMcNary 


Rucker Weisse 


Dixon, Ind. 


Humphrey 


Macon 


Ruppert Wiley, Ala. 


Bllerbe 


Wash. Marshall 


Russell Williams 


Esch 


Humphreys, 


Maynard 


Ryan Wood, Mo. 


Field 


Miss. Meyer 


Shackelford 


Finley 


Hunt 


Minor 


Sheppard 



Answered Present — 8. 
Andrus Clark, Fla. McMorran Patterson, Wadsworth 

Brooks, Cal. Crumpacker Otjen S. C. 







Not Votin 


G— 33. 




Bell, Ga. 


Fordney 


Ketchman 


Prince 


Van Duzer 


Bowie 


Garber 


Lamar 


Slemp 


Williamson 


Brussard 


Graham 


Lilley, Pa. 


Smith, 


Young 


Burton, Del. 


Hardwick 


Little 


Samuel W.Zenor. 


Byrd 


Hearst 


McDermott 


Southall 




Castor 


Hill, Miss. 


McLachlan 


Sullivan, 




Cockman 


Hitt 


Patterson, 


N. 


Y. 


Cromer 


Kennedy, 0. 


Tenn. Sulzer 





(Cong. Record, p. 1557.) 

Of those not voting, Patterson, of S. C, Bell, of Ga., Zenor, Hard- 
wick, Garber. Bowie, Southall, Little, Byrd, Clark, of Fla., Hill, of 
Miss., Sulzer and Van Duzer (Democrats) were paired against the 
bill; and Cromer, Burton, of Del., Crumpacker, Scott, Ketcham, Wads- 
worth, Prince, Slemp, Samuel W. Smith, Lilley, Hitt, Andrus and 
Graham (Republicans) were paired for it. 



Note — On March 9, the Senate adopted the Foraker amendment ( see 
vote on Statehood in Senate elsewhere in this book) ; and on March 22, 
the House by a vote of 175 to 156 disagreed to the Senate amendments 
(see Cong. Record, p. 4229). But later the Democrats by practically 
blocking legislation on other matters, compelled the Republican ma- 
jority to accept them ( see Record, p. 8781 ) . There was no yea-and-nay 
vote on agreeing to the second conference report. 



APPENDICES. 



281 



ON THE RESOLUTION (H. RES. 159) RELATING TO THE 

EIGHT-HOUR LAW, THE ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR 

LAW AND THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT. 

On January 26, 1906, the House of Representatives in conform- 
ity with a report from the Committee on Rules, passed the 
following resolution: 

"Resolved, That it shall be in order to offer as an amendment to 
the urgent deficiency bill (H. R. 12320), either in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole House on tlie state of the Union, even although 
the paragraph to which it is germane may have been passed, the fol- 
lowing amendment: 

" 'The provisions of the act entitled "An act relating to the limita- 
tions of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed 
upon the public works of the United States and of the District of 
Columbia," approved August 1, 1892, shall not apply to alien laborers 
employed in the construction of the isthmian canal within the Canal 
Zone.'" (Cong. Record, p. 1587.) 

Upon this resolution, the previous question was ordered, and 
it was passed by a party vote, the Republicans voting for it and 
the Democrats against it. The vote on the adoption of the 
resolution was as follows: 







Yeas— 


-145. 




Acheson 


Cousins 


Gillett, Mass. Loud 


Sibley 


Adams, Pa. 


Currier 


Graff 


Loudenslage 


r Slemp 


Alexander 


Cushman 


Grosvenor 


McCarthy 


Smith, Cal. 


Ames 


Dalzeli 


Hale 


McCreary 


Smith, Iowa. 


Bannon 


Darragh 


Hamilton 


Minn.Smyser 


Bates 


Davidson 


Haskins 


McKinley, III. Southard 


Beldler 


Dawes 


Haugen 


McMorran 


Southwick 


Bennett, N. Y.Dawson 


Hayes 


Mahon 


Sperry 


Bennett, Ky. 


Deemer 


Henry, Conn. Mann 


Sterling 


Birdsall 


Denby 


Hepburn 


Minor 


Stevens, 


Bishop 


Draper 


Higgins 


Mouser 


Minn. 


Blackburn 


Dresser 


Hill, Conn. 


Mudd 


Sulloway 


Bonynge 


Driscoll 


Hoar 


Needham 


Tawney 


Boutell 


Dwight 


Hubbard 


Nevin 


Taylor, Ohio. 


Bowersock 


Edwards 


Huff 


Norris 


Thomas, 0. 


Brick 


Ellis 


Humphrey 


Olcott 


Tirrell 


Brown 


Esch 


Wash.Otjen 


Tyndall 


Brownlow 


Passett 


Jones, Wash.Overstreet 


Underwood 


Burke, Pa. 


Flack 


Keifer 


Palmer 


Volstead 


Burke, S. D. 


Fletcher 


Kinkaid 


Parker 


Vreeland 


Burleigh 


Foss 


Knapp 


Payne 


Waldo 


Burton, 0. 


Foster, Ind. 


Knowland 


Perkins 


Wagner 


Calderhead 


Foster, Vt. 


Lacey 


Pollard 


Weeks 


Campbell, 0. 


Fowler 


Landis 


Powers 


Weems 


Capron 


French 


Chas. 


B. Reeder 


Welborn 


Cassel 


Fuller 


Landis, 


Rhodes 


Wilson 


Chaney 


Gaines, 


Frederick. Rives 


Woodyard 


Chapman 


W. Va.LeFevre 


Roberts 


Young 


Cocks 


Gardner, 


Littauer 


Samuel 




Cole 


Mich.Littlefleld 


Scroggy 




Conner 


Gardner, Mas Longworth 


Shartel 


f^^WP^^^JCJ';"'"! 



282 



APPmINDIGES. 







Nays— 


102. 


Adamson 


Fitzgerald 


Kitchin, 


Randall, Tex. Smith, Md. 


Aiken 


Flood 


Wm. W.Ransdell, La.Sparkman 


Bankhead 


Floyd 


Kline 


Rhinock Spight 


Bartlett 


Garner 


Liamar 


Richardson, Stephens, 


Beall, Tex. 


Garrett 


Lee 


Ala. Tex. 


Bowers 


Gillespie 


Lever 


Richardson, Sullivan, 


Broocks, Tex. Greene 


Lewis 


Ky. Mass. 


Brundige 


Gregg 


Livingston 


Rixey Taylor, Ala. 


Burgess 


Griggs 


Lloyd 


Robertson, Thomas, N. C. 


Burnett 


Hay 


McCall 


La. Towne 


Candler 


Heflin 


McGavin 


Robinson, Townsend 


Clark, Pla. 


Henry, Tex. 


McLain 


Ark. Trimble 


Clark, Mo. 


Hogg 


McNary 


Rodenberg Wallace 


Clayton 


Hopkins 


Macon 


Rucker Watkins 


Cooper, Wis. 


Houston 


Maynard 


Russell Webb 


Davey, La. 


Humphreys, 


Meyer 


Ryan Weisse 


Davis, W. Va. Miss. Moon, Tenn 


. Shackelford Wharton 


DeArmond, 


Hunt 


Moore 


Sheppard Wiley, Ala. 


Dickson, 111. 


James 


Murdock 


Sherley Williams 


Dixon, Ind. 


Jones, Va. 


Padgett 


Sims 


Ellerbe 


Keliher 


Page 


Smith, Ky. _ 


Field 


Kitchin, 


Pou 


Smith, Pa. 


Finley 


Claude Rainey 


Smith, Tex. 



Answbked Pkesent — 8. 
Andrus Crumpacker Olmstead Reid 

Burton, Del. Goulden Patterson, - Scott 

S. C. 



Not Voting — 130. 



Adams, Wis. 


Dovener 


Howell, 


McKinley, 


Smith, 


Allen, Me. 


Dunwell 


Utah Cal. Samuel W. 


Allen, N. J. 


Fordney 


Hughes 


McKinney 


Smith, 


Babcock 


Fulkerson, 


Hull 


McLachlan 


.Wm. Alden 


Barchfeld 


Gaines, 


Jenkins 


Madden 


Snapp 


Bartholdt 


Tenn. Johnson 


Marshall 


Southall 


Bede 


Garner 


Kahn 


Martin 


Stafford 


Bell, Ga. 


Gardner, 


Kennedy, 


Michalek 


Stanley 


Bingham 


N. 


J. Neb. Miller 


Steenerson 


Bowie 


Gilbert, Ind 


Kennedy, 


Mondell 


Sullivan, 


Bradley 


Gilbert, Ky. 


OhioMoon, Pa. 


N. Y. 


Brantley 


Gill 


Ketcham 


Morrell 


Sulzer 


Brooks, Col. 


Gillett, Cal. 


Klepper 


Murphy 


Swanson 


Broussard 


Glass 


Knopf 


Parsons 


Talbott 


Buckman 


Goebel 


Lafean 


Patterson, 


Van Duzer 


Burleson 


Goldfogle 


Lamb 


N. 


C.Van Winkle 


Butler, Pa. 


Graham 


Law 


Patterson, 


Wachter 


Butler, Tenn. Granger 


Lawrence 


Pa.Wadsworth 


Byrd 


Gronna 


Legare 


Patterson, 


Watson 


Calder 


Gudger 


Lester 


Tenn. Webber 


Campbell, 


Hardwick 


Lilley, Conn 


Pearre 


Wiley, N. J. 


Kan. Hearst 


Lilley, Pa. 


Prince 


Williamson 


Castor 


Hedge 


Lindsay 


Pujo 


Wood, Mo. 


Cockran 


Hermann 


Little 


Reynolds 


Wood, N. J. 


Cooper, Pa. 


Hill, Miss. 


Lorimer 


Ruppert 


Zenor 


Cromer 


Hinshaw . 


Lovering 


Schneebell 




Curtis 


Hitt 


McCueary, 


Sherman 




Dale 


Holliday 


Pa. Slayden 




Davis, Minn. Howard 


McDermott 


Small 




Dixon, Mont. Howell, N. 


J. 


Smith, 111. 





(Cong. Record, p. 1592.) 



APPENDICES. 



283 



Paiks For The Resolution. 




Sherman Hltt 


Bartholdt Cassel 


Bradley 


Morrell Ketcham 


Kennedy, 0. Dunwell 


Calder 


Patterson, Wadsworth 


Jenkins Andrews 


Watson 


Pa.Lllley, Conn. 


Bede McCreary, 




Butler, Pa. Wachter 


Bingham Pa 




Cromer Loverlng 


Barchfield Pearre 




Burton, Del. Kahn 


Buckman Prince 




Crumpacker Dovener 


Van Winkle Smith 




Scott Galllett, Cal. Smith, Samuel W 


, 


Curtis Overstreet 


Wm. AldenLilley, Pa. 




Graham Olmsted 


Howell Babcock 




Against The Resolution. 




Ruppert Little 


Lamaj Gilbert, Ky. 


Aiken 


Sullivan, Van Duzer 


Gaines, Tenn.Kitchin, 


Goulden 


N. Y.Hill, Miss. 


Rainey Claude Brantley 


Patterson, Garber 


Randell Goldfogle 


Small 


N. C.Bowie 


Tex.McDermott 


Swanson 


Broussard Reid 


Gill Sulzer 


Granger 


Patterson, Gudger 


Taylor, Ala. Talbott 


Johnson 


S. C.Stanley 


Finley Southall 


Lindsay 


Bell, Ga. Maynard 


Glass Byrd 


Legare 


Zenor Wood 


Pujo Cockran 




Hardwick 







Mr. Underwood, having voted nay, changed his vote to yea in order 
to move to reconsider the vote. (Cong. Record, pp. 1588 and 1592.) 

On the following day, January 27th, the amendment abrogating 
the eight-hour law on the Isthmus of Panama was passed by the 
following vote: 





Yeas— 120. 




Acheson 


Dawes 


Hoar 


Parker 


Adamei, Pa. 


De Armond 


Howell, Utah 


Payne 


Alexander 


Deemer 


Hubbard 


Perkins 


Allen, Me. 


Dovener 


Jenkins 


Reeder 


Ames 


Draper 


Jones, Wash. 


Reynolds 


Barchfeld 


Dwight 


Keifer 


Rives 


Bates 


Ellis 


Kinkaid 


Roberts 


Bennet, N. T. 


Esch 


Klepper 


Scroggy 


Birdsall 


Flack 


Knapp 


Shartel 


Bishop 


Fletcher 


Knowland 


Sibley 


Bonynge 


Foss 


Lacey 


Smith, Cal. 


Boutell 


Foster, Ind. 


Landis, Chas. B. 


Smith, 111. 


Brown 


Foster, Vt. 


Landis, FrederickSmith, Iowa 


Brownlow 


Fowler 


Lawrence 


Smyser 


Buckman 


French 


Loud 


Southard 


Burke, Pa. 


Fulkerson 


Loudenslager 


Southwick 


Burleigh 


Fuller 


Lovering 


Sperry 


Burton, Ohio 


Gaines, W. Va 


McKinley, III. 


Sterling 


Calderhead 


Gardner, Mass. 


McKinney 


Stevens, Minn 


Campbell, Ohio 


Gillett, Mas^. 


McMorran 


Sulloway 


Chaney 


Graflf 


Mahon 


Tawney 


Chapman 


Gronna 


Mann 


Tirrell 


Cole 


Grosvenor 


Marshall 


Volstead 


Conner 


Hale 


Miller 


Waldo 


Cousins 


Hamilton 


Mondell 


Wanger 


Currier 


Haskins 


Mouser 


Watson 


Dalzell 


Haugen 


Mudd 


Weeks 


Darragh 


Hepburn 


Needlam 


Welborn 


Davidson 


Hermann 


Norris 


Wilson 


Davis, Minn. 


Higgins 


Palmer 


The Speaker 



284 



APPENDICES. 







Nays— 110. 






Adamson 


Floyd 




Lever 




Russell 


Aiken 


Garner 




Lewis 




Ryan 


Allen, N. J. 


Garrett 




Lloyd 




Shackleford 


Bartlett 


Gilbert, 


Ky. 


McCall 




Sheppard 


Beall, Tex. 


Gill 




McGavin 




Sherley 


Bennett, Ky. 


Gillespie 




McLachlan 




Sims 


Bower a 


Goebel 




McLain 




Slayden 


Brooeks, Tex. 


Greene 




McNary 




Smith, Ky. 


Brooks, Col. 


Gregg 




Macon 




Smith, Pa. 


Brundige 


Gudgei* 




Maynard 




Smith, Tex. 


Burnett 


Hay 




Meyer 




Spight 


Butler, Tenn. 


Heflin 




Michalek 




Stafford 


Campbell, Kans 


. Henry, Tex. 


Moon, Tenn. 


Stanley 


Candler 


Hogg 




Moore 




Stephens, Tex. 


Capron 


Hopkins 




Padgett 




Sullivan, Mass. 


Clark, Fla. 


Houston 




Page 




Swanson 


Clark, Mo. 


Humphreys, Miss.Pou 




Talbott 


Clayton 


Hunt 




Pujo 




Taylor, Ala. 


Cooper, Wis. 


James 




Rainey 




Thomas, N. C. 


Dale 


Johmsion 




Randell, Tex. 


Towne 


Davis, W. Va. 


Keliher 




Rhinock 




Townsend 


Dickson, 111. 


Kitchin, 


Claude 


Richardson 


, Ala. 


Underwood 


Dixon, Ind. 


Kitchin, 


Wm. W.Richardson 


, Py 


Wallace 


Edwards 


Kline 




Rixey 




Watkins 


Ellerbe 


Lamar 




Robertson, 


La. 


Webb 


Field 


Lee 




Robinson, 


Ark. 


Williams 


Finley 


Legare 




Rodenberg 






Fitzgerald 


Lester 




Rucker 








Answered Present- 


-11. 




Bradley 


Crumpacker 


Patterson, 


N. C. 


Sherman 


Brick 


Flood 




Patterson, 


s. c. 


Weis,se 


Burton, Del. 


Griggs 




Reid 










Not Voting — 145 






Adams, Wis. 


Dawson 




Howell, N. 


J. 


Martin 


Andrug 


Denby 




Huff 




Minor 


Babcock 


Dixon, Mont. 


Hughes 




Moon, Pa. 


Bankhead 


Drese,er 




Hull 




Morrell 


Bannon 


Driscoll 




Humphrey, 


Wash.Murdock 


Bartholdt 


Dunwell 




Jones, Va. 




Murphy 


Bede 


Fassett 




Kahn 




Nevin 


Beidler 


Fordney 




Kennedy, 


Neb. 


Olcott 


Bell, Ga. 


Gaines, 


Tenn. 


Kennedy, Ohio 


Olmsted 


Bingham 


Garber 




Ketcham 




Otjen 


Blackburn 


Gardner, 


Mich. 


Knopf 




Overstreet 


Bowersock 


Gardner, 


N. J. 


Lafean 




Parsons 


Bowie 


Gilbert, 


Ind. 


Lamb 




Patterson, Pa. 


Brantley 


Gillett, Cal. 


Law 




Patterson, Tenn. 


Broussard 


Glass 




Le Fevre 




Pearre 


Burgess 


Goldfogle 




Lilley, Conn. 


Pollard 


Burke, S. Dak. 


Goulden 




Lilley, Pa. 




Powers 


Burleson 


Graham 




Lindsay 




Prince 


Butler, Pa. 


Granger 




Littauer 




Ransdell, La. 


Byrd 


Hardwicl? 




Little 




■Rhodes 


Calder 


Hayes 




Littlefleld 




Ruppert 


Cassel 


Hearst 




Livingston 




Samuel 


Castor 


Hedge 




Longworth 




Schneebeli 


Oockran 


Henry, Conn. 


Lorimer 




Scott 


Cocks 


Hill, Conn. 


McCarthy 




Slemp 


Cooper, Pa. 


McCIeary 


, Minn. 


Hill, Miss. 




Small 


Cromer 


Hinshaw 




McCreary, 


Pa. 


Smith, Md. 


Curtis 


Hitt 




McDermott 




Smith, Samuel W. 


Cushman 


Holliday 




McKinlay, 


Cal. 


Smith, Wm. Alden 


Davey, I^a. 


Howard 




Madden 




Snapp 



APPENDICES. 



285 



Southall 


Trimble 


Webber 


Wood, N. J. 


Sparkman 


Tyndall 


Weema 


Wpodyard 


Steenerson 


Van Duzer 


Wharton 


Young 


Sullivan, N. Y. 


. Van Winkle 


Wiley, Ala. 


Zenor 


Sulzer 


Vreeland 


Wiley, N. J. 




Taylor, Ohio 


Wachter 


Williamson 




Thomas, Ohio 


Wadsworth 


Wood, Mo. 




The following were pa: 


ired in favor of the amendment. 


Andrns 


Howell, N. J. 


Vreeland 


Burton, Del. 


Babcock 


Kahn 


Wachter 


Cromer 


Baunon 


Law 


Wiley, N. J. 


Butler, Penn. 


Bingham 


Lilley, Penn. 


Wood, N. J. 


Graham 


Bowersock 


Littauer 


Lilley, Conn. 


Hitt 


Brick 


McCreary, Penn. Longworth 


Bradley 


Calder 


Olmsted 


Ketcham 


Knopf 


Dunwell 


Overstreet 


Wadsworth 


Morrell 


Fassett 


Pearre 


Scott 


Patterson, Penn. 


Dawson 


Smith, Samuel W.Curtis 


Sherman 


Gillett, Cal. 


Smith, Wm. AldenCrumpacker 






The following 


were paired against it. 


Sulzer 


McDermott 


Wiley, Ala. 


Bell, Ga. 


Bankhead 


Brantley 


Trimble 


Patterson, S. C. 


Small 


Lindsay 


Livingston 


Brousard 


Oockran 


Hearst 


Davey, La. 


Van Duzer 


Glass 


Griggs 


Reid 


Hill, Miss. 


Burleson 


Southall 


Granger 


Goulden 


Jones, Va. 


Flood 


Garber 


Weisse 


Burgess 


Sparkman 


Bowie 


Sullivan, N. Y. 


Gaines, Tenn. 


Howard 


Hardwick 


Patterson, N. C. 


Lamb 


Byrd 


Little 


Ruppert 


Goldfogle 


Smith, Md. 


Zenor 


, 



ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION (S. R. 60) "PROVIDING FOR 

THE PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT 

FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

PANAMA CANAL." 

On June 16, 1906, the House of Representatives passed the 
Aldrich resolution, which had previously passed the Senate by 
a party vote. The resolution was as follows: 

"Resolved, etc., That purchases of material and equipment for use 
in the construction of the Panama Canal shall be restricted to ar- 
ticles of domestic production and manufacture, from the lowest re- 
sponsible bidder, unless the President shall, in any case, deem the 
bids or tenders therefor to be extortionate or unreasonable." (Cong. 
Record, p. 8918.) 

The vote in detail w^as as follows: 







Yeas — : 


L29. 




Adams 


Bishop 


Cocks 


Davidson 


Foster, Ind. 


Allen, Me. 


Bonynge 


Cole 


Dawes 


Foster, Vt. 


Allen, N. J. 


Boutell 


Cooper, Pa. 


Denby 


French 


Andrus 


Brownlow 


Cooper, W^is. 


. Dixon, Mont. Gaines, 


Bannon 


Burke, 


Cousins 


Draper 


W. Va. 


Barchfeld 


S. Dak. Cromer 


Driscoll 


Gardner, 


Bartholdt 


Butler, Pa. 


Currier 


Dunwell 


Mass. 


Bates 


Calderhead 


Curtis 


Dwight 


Gardner, 


Bede 


Capron 


Cushman 


Ellis 


Mich. 


Bennett, N.Y 


. Chaney 


Dale 


Fletcher 


Gardner, 


Bennett, Ky. 


Chapman 


Dalzell 


Fos3 


N. J. 



286 



APPENDICES. 



Goebel 


Jones, Wash.McKinley, 


Overstreet 


Sulloway 




Graff 


Kahn 


Cal. Payne 


Taylor, 0. 




Grosvenor 


Keifer 


McKinley, Ill.Reeder 


Thomas, 0. 




Hale 


Kennedy, 


McKinney 


Rhodes 


Tirrell 




Hamilton 


Neb. McLachlan 


Rives 


Townsend 




Hayes 


Kinkaid 


McMorran 


Rodenberg 


Waldo 




Henry, Conn.Klepper 


Madden 


Scroggy 


Wanger 




Hepburn 


Knowland 


Mahon 


Sibley 


Watson 




Hermann 


Lacey 


Marshall 


Smith, Cal. 


Weems 




Higgins 


I^andis, 


Martin 


Smith, Iowa 


Wharton 




Hill, Conn. 


Frederick Michalek 


Smith, 


Willey, N. J. 




Hoar 


Lawrence 


Miller 


Samuel W.Wilson 




Hogg 


Loud 


Mondell 


Smyser 


Wood, N. J. 




Howell, N. J. Loudenslager Mouser 


Snapp 


Woodward 




Huff 


McCleary, 


Needham 


Southard 






Humplirey 


Minn.Nevin 


Southwick 






Wash.McCreary, 


Olmstead 


Sperry 






Jenkins 


Pa.Otjen 


Sterling 










Nats- 


-82. 






Adamson 


Davis, Minn.Kitchin, 


Rainey 


Wallace 




Aiken 


Davis, W. Va. Wm. 


W.Ransdell, La.Watkins 




Bankliead 


De Armond 


Lee 


Richardson, 


Webb 




Bartlett 


Dixon, Ind. 


Lloyd 


Ky. Williams 




Beall, Tex. 


Ellerbe 


McCarthy 


Russell 


Zenor 




Bell, Ga. 


Finley 


McLain 


Sheppard 






Birdsall 


Floyd 


McNary 


Sherley 






Bowie 


Fulkerson 


Macon 


Sims 






Brantley 


Garner 


Mann 


Slayden 






Broocks, Tex. Granger 


Meyer 


Smith, Ky. 






Brundige 


Hardwick 


Moon, Tenn. Smith, Tex. 






Burgess 


Heflin 


Moore 


Spight 






Burleson 


Henry, Tex. 


Murdock 


Stafford 






Burton, 0. 


Houston 


Murphy 


Steenerson 






Butler, Tenn. Howard 


Norris 


Stevens, 






Candler 


Hubbard 


Padgett 


Minn. 




Clark, Fla. 


Humphreys, 


Patterson, 


Sullivan, 






Clark, Mo. 


Miss. S. 


C. Mass. 




Clayton 


Hunt 


Perkins 


Thomas, 






Crumpacker 


Johnson 


Pou 


N. C. 




Darragh 


Jones, Va. 


Pujo 


Volstead 










Answered Pebsent — 9. 






Burton, Del 


Holliday 


Patterson, 


Pollard 


Weeks 




Gregg 


Lever 


N. 


C. Sparkman 






Hinshaw 
















Not Voting — 160. 






Aelieson 


Campbell, 0. Garett 


Hopkins 


Lewis 




Alexander 


Cassel 


Gilbert 


Howell, UtahLilley, Conn. 




Ames 


Cockran 


Gill 


Hughes 


Lilley, Pa. 




Babcock 


Conner 


Gillespie 


Hull 


Lindsay 




Beidler 


Davey, La. 


Gillette, Cal. James 


Littauer 




Bingham 


Dawson 


Gillette, 


Keliher 


Little 




Blackburn 


Deember 


Mass. Kennedy, 0. 


Littlefield 




Bowers 


Dickson, 111 


Glass 


Ketcham 


Livingston 




Bowersock 


Dovener 


Goldfogle 


Kitchin, 


Longworth . 




Bradley 


Dresser 


Goulden 


Claude Lorimer 




Brick 


Edwards 


Graham 


Kline 


Lovering 




Brooks, Col 


Esch 


Greene 


Knapp 


McCall 




Broussard 


Fassett 


Griggs 


Knopf 


McDermott 




Brown 


Field 


Gronna 


Lafean 


McGavin 




Buckman 


Fitzgerald 


Gudger 


Lamar 


Maynard 




Burke, Pa. 


Fleck 


Haskins 


Lamb 


Minor 




Burleigh 


Flood 


Haugen 


Landis, 


Moon, Pa. 




Burnett 


Fordney 


Hay 


Chas. B.Morrell 




Byrd 


Fowler 


Hearst 


La-w 


Mudd 




Calder 


Fuller 


Hedge 


Lefevre 


Olcott 




Campbell, 


Gaines, Tenn. Hill, Miss 


Legare 


Page 




Kan.Garer 


Hitt 


Lester 


Palmer 





APPENDICES. 



287 



Parker 


Rlxey 


Shartel 


Sullivan, N. Y. Wadsworth 


Parsons 


Roberts 


Sherman 


Sulzer 


Webber 


Patterson. 


Robertson, 


Slemp 


Talbott 


Weisse 


Tent 


1. La. Small 


Tawney 


Welborn 


Pearre 


Robinson, 


Smith, 111. 


Taylor, Ala. 


Wiley, Ala. 


Powers 


Ark. Smith, Md. 


Towne 


Wood, Mo. 


Prince 


Rucker 


Smith, 


Tyndall 


Young 


Randell, Tex.Ruppert 


Wm. AldenUnderwood 




Reld 


Ryan 


Smith, Pa. 


Van Duzer 




Reynolds 


Samuel 


Southall 


Van Winkle 




Rhinock 


Schneebelie 


Stanley 


Trimble 




Richardson, 


Scott 


Stephens, 


Vreeland 




Ala. Shackelford 


Ter.Wachter 





Of those not voting 152 members were paired — ^the Republicans for 
the resolution and the Democrats against it^ as follows : 







Paired For It. 




Currier 


Holliday 


McCreary, 


Burleigh 


Dalzell 


Sherman 


Morrell 


Pa. Brown 


Lawrence 


Mouser 


Lilley, Pa. 


McCall, Mich. Brick 


Reynolds 


Bradley 


Hitt 


Loud 


Blackburn 


Smith, 111. 


Longworth 


Dovener 


Littauer 


Bingham 


Gardner, 


Graham . 


Burke 


Lilley, Conn. 


Beidler 


Bartholdt 


Vreeland 


Minor 


Landis, 


Gillett, Mass. Brooks, Col. 


Knapp 


Shartel 


Charles B. Fassett 


Babcock 


Slemp 


Roberts 


Ketcham 


Schneebeli 


Burton, Ohio 


Powers 


Wadsworth 


Hull 


Gronna 


Van Winkle 


Daemer 


Smith, 


Hughes 


Bowersock 


Alexander 


Haskins 


Wm. AldenHiaugen 


Acheson 


Tawney 


Greene 


Pearre 


Gardner 


Mudd 


Campbell, 


Welborn 


Palmer 


Fuller 


Wachter 


Kan. 


Weeks 


Olcott 


Cassel 


Burton, Del. 


Esch 


Edwards 


Moon, Pa. 


Calderhead 


Dickson, 111. 


Ames 


Lefevre 


Mondell 


Calder 


Law 








Paired Against It, 




Pinley 


Kitchin, 


Randell, 


Field 


Wood, Mo. 


Ruppert 


Claude Tex. Byrd 


Williams 


Garrett 


Wiley, Ala. 


Patterson, 


Brussard 


Griggs 


Goulden 


Sullivan, 


Tenn. Bowers 


Hunt 


Stephens, 


N. Y.Robertson, 


Small 


Lamar 


Tex. Gilbert, Ky. 


La.Tiindsay 


Russell 


Page 


Legare 


McLain 


Bell, Ga. 


Griggs 


Gregg 


Sparkman 


Towne 


Keliher 


McLain 


Little 


Gillespie 


McDermott 


Smith, Md. 


Pujo 


Glass 


Sulzer 


Livingston 


Patterson 


Humphreys 


Gaines, Tenn.Van Duzer 


Lewis 


Garber 


Richardson, 


Kline 


Weisse 


Hearst 


Goldfogle 


Ala. 


Lever 


Lamb 


Lester 


Robinson, 


Garrett 


Patterson, 


Underwood 


Lamar 


Ark. Ryan 


N. 


C. Southall 


Hay 


James 


Davey, La. 


Gudger 


Shackleford 


Flood 


Rhinock 


Trimble 


Stanley 


Rixey 


Fitzgerald 


Gill 


Rucker 


Hill, Miss. 


Reid 


Cockran 


Burnett 





(Cong. Record, pp. 8910, 8914, 8918.) 



288 



APPENDICES. 



PRESIDENT'S TRAVELING EXPENSES. 



ON THE BILL (H. R. 20,321), "TO PROVIDE FOR 
TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES." 



THE 



On June 20, 1906, the House of Representatives passed the 
following bill: 

"Be it enacted, etc., That hereafter there may be expended for or 
on account of the traveling expenses of the President of the United 
States such sum as Congress may from time to time appropriate, 
not exceeding $25,000 per annum, such sum when appropriated to 
be expended in the discretion of the President and accounted for on 
his certificate solely. 

"There is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, for the purposes authorized by this act 
for the fiscal year 1907, the sum of $25,000." (Cong. Record, 9055.) 

The vote in detail was as follows: 







Yeas— 176. 




Adams 


Currier 


Hale 


Littauer 


Ryan 


Alexander 


Curtis 


Hamilton 


McCarthy 


Samuel 


Allen, Me. 


Cusbman 


Hayes 


McGavin 


Schneebelie 


Allen, N. J. 


Dalzell 


Hedge 


McKinley, 


Scott 


Andrus 


Davey, La. 


Henry, Cone 


Cal. Scroggy 


Barchfeld 


Davis, Minn 


Hepburn 


McKinney 


Shartel 


Bartholdt 


Dawes 


Hermann 


McLachlan 


Sherley 


Bede 


Dawson 


Higgins 


McMorran 


Smith, 111. 


Bennett, Ky 


. Denby 


Hinsbaw 


McNary 


Smith, Iowa 


Birdsall 


Dickson, 111. 


Hoar 


Madden 


Smith, 


Bonynge 


Dixon, Mont 


Hogg 


Marshall 


Samuel W. 


Boutell 


l^raper 


Holiday 


Martin 


Smith, Pa. 


Brick 


Dun well 


Howell, Utab Meyer 


Sperry 


Brooks, Col. 


Ellis 


Hubbard 


Michalek 


Stafford 


Broussard 


Esch 


Huff 


Miller 


Steenerson 


Brownlow 


Fassett 


Hull 


Mondell 


Sterling 


Buckman 


Fitzgerald 


Humphrey, 


Moon, Pa. 


Sullivan, 


Burton, Del. 


Fordney 


Wasl 


. Mouser 


Mass. 


Burton, ObioFoss 


Hunt 


Mudd 


Sulloway 


Butler, Pa. 


Foster, Ind. 


Jenkins 


Murdock 


Tawney 


Calder 


Frencb 


Jones 


Murphy 


Taylor, Ohio 


Campbell, 


Fulkerson 


Kabn 


Needham 


Thomas, Ohio 


Kan. Puller 


Keifer 


Nevin 


Tirrell 


Campbell, O.Gaines, 


Keliber 


Norris 


Tyndall 


Capron 


W. Va. Kennedy, 


Olmstead 


Volstead 


Cassel 


Gardner, 


Neb. Otjen 


Wachter 


Cbaney 


Mass.Kinkaid 


Overstreet 


Waldo 


Chapman 


Gardner, 


Klepper 


Payne 


Wanger 


Clark, Fla. 


Micb. Kline 


Pollard 


Watson 


Cockran 


Gardner, 


Knapp 


Prince 


Webber 


Cocks 


N. J 


. Knowland 


Pujo 


Weems 


Cole 


Gillett, Mass.Lacey 


Ransdell, La. Wiley, N. J. 


Conner 


Glass 


Lafean 


Reeder 


Wood, N. J. 


Cooper, Pa. 


Goebel 


Landis, 


Reynolds 


Woodyard 


Cooper, Wis 


Goulden 


Frederick Rives 


Young 


Cousins 


GraflE 


Law / 


Roberts 




Cromer 


Granger 


Lilley, Conn 


Rodenberg 




Crumpacker 


Grosvenor 


Lindsay 


Ruppert 





APPENDICES. 



28d 



Nays — 66. 



Adamson 

Aiken 

Bankhead 

Beall, Tex. 

Brundige 

Burgess 

Burleson 

Burnett 

Butler, Tenn. 

Candler 

Clark, Mo. 

De Armond 

Dixon, Ind. 

Ellerbe 

Finley 

Gaines, Tenn. 
Gilbert, Ky. 
Graham 



Flood 
Floyd 
Garner 
Garrett 
Gill 

Gillespie 
Hay 
Heflin 

Henry, Tex. 
Hill, Miss. 
Hopkins 
Houston 
Howard 
Humphreys, 
Miss. 



James 
Johnson 
Jones, Va. 
Kitchin, 

Wm. W. 
Lemar 
liee 

Livingston 
Lloyd 
McLain 
Macon 
Maynard 
Moon, Tenn. 
Moore 
Padgett 



Patterson, 

Rainey 

Rhinock 

Richardson, 

Ala 
Richardson, 

Ky 
Rixey 
Rucker 
Russell 
Sheppard 
Sims 
Slayden 
Smith, Tex. 



Southall 

Spight 

Thomas, 

N. ' 
Towne 
Townsend 
Trimble 
Underwood 
Wallace 
Watkins 
Williams 
Zenor 



Not Voting — 125. 



Gregg Lever Mann Pou 

Kitchin, McCleary, Patterson, Southward 

Claude Minn. N. C. Weeks 



Answered Present — 12. 



Acheson 

Ames 

Babcock 

Bannon 

Bartlett 

Bates 

Beidler 

Bell, Ga. 

Bennet, N. Y 

Bingham 

Bishop 

Blackburn 

Bowers 

Bowersock 

Bowie 

Bradley 

Brantley 

Broocks, Tex, 

Brown 

Burke, Pa. 

Burke, 

S. Dak 
Burleigh 
Byrd 

Calderhead 
Clayton 
Dale 
Darragh 



Davidson 

Davis, W. Va. 

Deemer 

Dovener 

Dreeser 

Driscoll 

Dwight 

Edwards 

Field 

Flack 

Fletcher 

Foster, Vt. 

Fowler 

Garner 

Gilbert, Ind. 

Gillett, Cal. 

Goldfogle 

, Greene 

Griggs 

Gronna 

Gudger 

Hardwick 

Haskins 

Haugen 

Hearst 

Hill, Conn. 

Hitt 

Howell, N. J. 



Hughes 

Kennedy, O. 

Ketcham 

Knopf 

Lamb 

Landis, 

Chas. B. 
Lawrence 
Lefevre 
Legare 
Lewis 
Lilley, Pa. 
Little 
Littlefleld 
Longworth 
Lorimer 
Loud 

Loudenslager 
Lovering 
McCall 
McCreary, 

Pa. 
McDermott 
McKinley, HI. 
Mahon 
Minor 
Morrell 
Olcott 



Page 

Palmer 

Parker 

Parsons 

Patterson, 

Tenn. 
Pearre 
Perkins 
Powers 
Randell, Tex. 
Reid 
Rhodes 
Robertson, 

La. 
Robinson, 

Ark. 
Shackelford 
Sherman 
Sibley 
Slemp 
Small 

Smith, Cal. 
Smith, Ky. 
Smith, Md. 
Smith, 

Wm. Alden 
Smyser 
Snapp 



Southwick 
Sparkman 
Stanley 
Stephens, 

Tex. 
Stevens, 

Minn. 
Sullivan, 

N. Y. 
Sulzer 
Talbott 
Taylor, Ala. 
Van Duzer 
Van Winkle 
Vreeland 
Wadsworth 
Webb 
Weisse 
Welborn 
Wharton 
Wiley, Ala. 
Wilson 
Wood, Mo. 



(Cong. Record, p. 9059.) 

Of those not voting 96 were paired — 28 Republicans for the bill 
and 48 Democrats against it, as follows : 



Paired For The Bill. 



Southward Lefevre 


McCleary, 


Burleigh Smith, 


Dale Hitt 


Minn. Howell,. N. J. Wm. Alden 


Morrell Dovener 


McCall 


Hughes Lovering 


Mahon Foster 


Olcott 


Landis, Sherman 


McKinley, 111. Lawrence 


Acheson 


Charles B. Deemer 


Powers Edwards 


Bingham 


Loudenslager Bradley 


Haskins Minor 


Burke, Pa. 


McCreary, Bannon 


Welbirn Babcock . 


Brown ^ 


Pa. Rhodes 


Weeks Kennedy. 0. 


Ketcham 


Wilson Mann 



290 



APPENDICES. 



Paiked Against The Bill. 




Hardwick KitcMn, Gregg 


Barger 


Smith, Ky. 


Bowie Claude Stephens 


Bell, Ga. 


Shackleford 


Sullivan. Legare 


Tex.Byrd 


Wood, Mo. 


N, Y.Sparkman Webb 


Goldfogle 


Robinson, 


Weisse Pou Broocks, 


Tex. Field 


Ark. 


Reid Griggs Sulzer 


Hearst 


Small 


Gaines, Clayton Bowers 


McDermott 


Talbott 


Tenn. Patterson, Lamb 


Patterson, 


Little 


Lever N. C.Brantley 


Tenn. Lewis 


Gudger Gilbert, Ky. Robertson, Randell, Tex. Wiley, Ala. 


Stanley Page 


La. Taylor, Ala. 


Smith, Md. 
Bartlett 



(Cong. Record, p. 9059.) 

RATIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE USURPATIONS— PHILIP- 
PINE BLACKMAIL COLLECTIONS. 

On June 27, 1906, the House of Representatives passed the 
following resolution: 

"Resolved, That during the consideration of the general deficiency 
appropriation bill, now pending in Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union, it hall he in order to consider points of 
order notwithstanding the paragraph relating' to the ratification of 
the Philippines' tariff, page 4, lines 17 to 26, and page 5, lines 1 and 2, 
as follows, viz. : 

"'That the tariff duties, both import and export, imposed by the 
authorities of the United States or of the provisional military gov- 
ernment thereof in the Philippine Islands prior to March 8, 1902, at 
all ports and places in said islands upon all goods, wares and mer- 
chandise imported into said islands from the United States, or from 
foreign countries, or exported from said islands, are hereby legalized 
and ratified, and the collection of all such duties prior to March 8, 
1902, is hereby legalized and ratified and confirmed as fully to all 
intents and purposes as if the same had by prior act of Congress been 
specifically authorized and directed.' " ( See Cong. Record, p. 9652. ) 

The vote in detail on this resolution was as follows: 







Yeas— 154. 


Acbeson 


Cocks 


Fussett 


Higgins Le Fevre 


Adams 


Cole 


Fletcher 


Hinshaw Lilley, Conn. 


Alexander 


Conner 


Foster, Ind. 


Hoar Littauer 


Allen, N. J. 


Cooper, Wis. 


Foster, Vt. 


HoHiday Loud 


Bannon 


Coudrey 


Fowler 


Howell, N. J. Loudenslager 


Barcbfeld 


Cousins 


French 


Howell, Utah McCarthy 


Bates 


Cromer 


Fulkerson 


Hubbard McCreary, 


Bennet, N. "i 


'.Crumpacker 


Fuller 


Huff Pa 


Bennett, Ky. 


Currier 


Gaines, 


Humphrey, McGavin 


Bisbop 


Curtis 


W. Va 


Wash.McKinley, 


Bonynge 


Dalzell 


Gardner, 


Jenkins Cal 


Boutell 


Darragb 


Mass. Jones, Wash.McKinley, 111 


Brick 


Davidson 


Gardner, 


Kahn McKinney 


Brooks, Col. 


Davis, Minn 


Mich. Keif er McLachlan 


Burke, Pa. 


Dawson 


Gilbert, Ind 


Kennedy, McMorran 


Burton, Del. 


Denby 


Goebel 


Neb. Madden 


Burton, OhioDickson, 111. 


Graff 


Kennedy, 0. Mahon 


Calderhead 


Dixon, Mont. Grosvenor 


Kinkaid Mann 


"Campbell, 


Dresser 


Hale 


Klepper Marshall 


Kan.Driscol 


Hamilton 


Lacey Michalek 


■Campbell, 0. 


Dunwell 


Raskins 


Lafean Miller 


€apron 


Dwight 


Hayes 


Landis, Moon, Pa. 


Cassel 


Ellis 


Henry, Conn 


Chas. B.Morrel 


Chapman 


Esch 


Hermann 


Lawrence Mouser 



APPENDICES. 



291 



Needham 


Rives 


Smith, Iowa 


Sterling 


Watson 


Nevln 


Roberts 


Smith, 


Sulloway 


Webber 


Olcott 


Rodenberg 


Wm. AldenTawney 


Weeks 


Olmsted 


Samuel 


Smyser 


Thomas, 0. 


Weems 


Otjen 


Schneebeli 


Snapp 


Tirrell 


Wiley, N. J. 


Parker 


Scott 


Southwick 


Townsend 


Wilson 


Payne 


Sherman, 


Sperry 


Volstead 


Wood 


Perkins 


Smith, Cal. 


Stafford 


Waldo 


Young 


Reynolds 


Smith, 111. 


Steenerson 
Nays— 


Wanger 
■82. 




Adamson 


Ellerbe 


Humphreys, 


McNary 


Sheppard 


Bankhead 


Finley 


Miss. Macon 


Sherley 


Bartlett 


Fitzgerald 


Hunt 


Maynard 


Sims 


Beall, Tex. 


Flood 


Johnson 


Moon, Tenn. 


. Smith, Md. 


Bell, Ga. 


Floyd 


Jones, Va. 


Moore 


Sullivan, 


Broussard 


Garber 


Keliher 


Murphy 


Mass. 


Brundige 


Garrett 


Kitchin 


Padgett 


Sulzer 


Burgess 


Gill 


ClaudePatterson, 


Talbott 


Burleson 


Gillespie 


Kitchin, 


S. C.Trimble 


Burnett 


Granger 


Wm. W.Pou 


Underwood 


Candler 


Gregg 


Lemar 


Pujo 


Wallace 


Clark, Fla. 


Griggs 


Lamb 


Ransdell, La.Watkins 


Clark, Mo. 


Hay 


Lee 


Pwhinock 


Webb 


Cockran 


Heflin 


Lever 


Rixey 


Williams 


Davey, La. 


Henry, Tex. 


Lindsay 


Rucker 




Davis, W. Va.HlIl. Miss. 


Livingston 


Ruppert 




De Armond 


Hopkins 


Lloyd 


Russell 




Dixon, Ind. 


Houston 


MeCall 


Ryan 





AXSWEEED PBESEXT 15. 

Bradley Gaines, Greene Meyer 

Burleigh Tenn. Gudger Parsons 

Butler, Pa. Glass Hardwick Richardson, 

Dale Graham James Ky. 

Not Voting — 128. 



Spi?ht 



Aiken 


Dawes 


Kline 


Patterson, 


Smith. Tex. 


Allen, Me. 


Deemer 


Knapp 


N. CSouthall 


Ames 


Dovener 


Knopf 


Patterson, 


Southard 


Andrus 


Draper 


Knowland 


Tenn. Sparkman 


Babcock 


Edwards 


Landis 


Pearre 


Stanley 


Bartholdt 


Field 


Frederick 


Pollard 


Stephen, Tex. 


Bede 


Flack 


Law 


Powers 


Stevens, 


Beidler 


Fordney 


Legare 


Prince 


Minn. 


Bingham 


Foss 


Lewis 


Rainey 


Sullivan, 


Birdsall 


Gardner, 


Lilley, Pa. 


Randell, Tes 


:. N. Y. 


Blackburn 


N. J. Little 


Reeder 


Taylor, Ala. 


Bowers 


Garner 


Littlefield 


Reid 


Taylor, Ohio 


Bowersock 


Gilbert, Ky. 


Longworth 


Rhodes 


Thomas, 


Bowie 


Gillett, 


Lorimer 


Richardson, 


N. C. 


Brantley 


Mass. Lovering 


Ala. Towne 


Broocks 


Goldfogle 


McCleary, 


Robertson, 


Tyndall 


Tex.Goulden 


Minn. La. Van Duzer 


Brown 


Gronna 


McDermott 


Robinson, 


Van Winkle 


Brownlow 


Haugen 


McLain 


Ark.Vreeland 


Buckman 


Hearst 


Martin 


Scroggy 


Wachter 


Burke, 


Hedge 


Minor 


Shackleford 


Wadsworth 


S. Dak. Hepburn 


Mondell 


Shartel 


Weisse 


Butler, 


Hill, Conn. 


Mudd 


Sibley 


Welborn 


Tenn.mtt 


Murdock 


Slayden 


Wharton 


Calder 


Hogg 


Morris 


Slemp 


Wiley, Ala. 


Chaney 


Howard 


Overstreet 


Small, Ky. 


Woodyard 


Clayton 


Hughes 


Page 


Smith, 


Zenor 


Cooper, Pa. 


Hull 


Palmer 


Samuel W 


'. 


Cushman 


Ketcham 




Smith, Pa. 





(See Cong. Record, p. 9657.) 



292 



APPENDICES. 



The following members were paired for the resolution: 



Hull 


Deemer 


Powers 


Law 


Bingham 


Bradley 


Greene 


Slemp 


Knapp 


Beidler 


Poss 


Puller 


Vreeland 


Knowland 


Buckman 


Dale 


Graham 


Wachter 


Ketcham 


Littlefield 


Babcock 


Hughes 


Woodyard 


Hepburn 


Burleigh 


Andrua 


Hedge 


Smith, 


Fordney 


Bede 


Southard 


Edwards 


Samuel W. Draper 


Pearre 


Lilley, Pa. 


Longworth 


Sibley 


Dawes 


Wadsworth 


Butler, Pa. 


Dovener 


Rhodes 


Cooper, Pa. 




Hill, Conn. 


Hitt 


Palmer 


Gillett, 




Birdsall 


Le Pevre 


Murdock 


Mass 


. 


Brownlow 


Welborn 


Mudd 


Bowersock 






The following were 


paired against it: 


Slayden 


Kline 


Kitchin, 


Smith, Ky. 


Clayton 


Goulden 


Patterson, 


Claude Taylor, Ala. 


Bowers 


Meyer 


N. 


C. Gudger 


Reid 


Goldfogle 


Bowie 


Richardson 


Gaines, 


Rainey 


Aiken 


Little 


Ky. Tenn. Towne 


Robertson, 


Thomas, 


Page 


Glass 


Randell, Tei 


:. La 


N. C.Reid 


Pield 


Richardson, 


Sullivan, 


Hardwick 


Spight 


Wiley, Ala. 


Ala 


N. Y 


Gilbert, Ky. 


Broocks, Tex.Southall 


Patterson, 


McDermott 


Garner 


Stephens, 


Stanley 


Tenn. Brantley 


Butler, Tenn. Tex. Small 


McLain 


Van Duzer 


Hearst 


Sparkman 


Shackleford 


Lewis 


Zenor 


Smith, Tex. 


Legare 


Robinson, 


Howard 





Official statement showing monthly operations of McKinley 
tariff from October, 1890, when it took effect, to the inauguration 
of Mr. Cleveland, March, 1893. The table (printed elsewhere) 
prepared by Hon. John W. Gaines, is based on this statement. 



APPENDICES. 293 



APPENDIX D. 

A LIST OF TRUSTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 



This list of 287 industrial trusts — probably the most complete ever 
published, is prepared by Mr, John Moody, of New York, publisher of 
Moody's Manual of Corporation Securities, the standard reference book for 
American investment securities of every nature. 

This list embraces all so-called trusts of importance, and in- 
cludes besides industrial combinations, the large security-holding 
(but not operating) companies in the gas, electric light, electric 
and steam railroad industries. Hence a security-holding com- 
pany, or "trust," such as the Bay State Gas Company, is included, 
whereas the Consolidated Gas Company of New York is omitted. 
Likewise the Northern Securities Company is included, but the 
Pennsylvania Railroad Company omitted. The many consolidated 
transportation and other franchise corporations not embraced in 
this list, such as railroad, traction, lighting and water combina- 
tions, would aggregate in capitalization many billions of dollars. 
This list, however, is limited to what are popularly known as 
"industrial trusts." The industrial companies here embraced are 
all consolidations or absorptions of one kind or another. 

Capital Stock Bonded Debt 

Name of Company. Outstanding, Outstanding. 

X Alabama Consol. Coal Mine Co $ 5,000,000 $ 495,000 

X Alabama & Georgia Iron Co 1,300,000 

X Allied Securities Co 5,000,000 

X Allis-Chalmers Co 36,250,000 

Amalgamated Copper Co 155,000,000 

X American Agricultural Chemical Co. . . 33,600,000 

X American Axe & Tool Co 2,000,000 

X American Beet Sugar Co 19,000,000 1,000,000 

X American Bicycle Co 26,996,400 9,500,000 

X American Book Co 5,000,000 

X American Brake, Shoe & Foundry Co. . . 4,500,000 1,000,000 

X American Brass Co 10,000,000 

X American Can Co 86,466,600 

X American Car & Foundry Co 60,000,000 

X American Caramel Co 2,000,000 475,000 

X American Cement Co 2,000,000 930,000 

X American Cereal Co 3,400,000 1,187,000 

X American Chicle Co 9,000,000 

X American Cigar Co 10,000,000 

X American Coal Co 1,500,000 

X American Cotton Oil Co 30,435,700 3,000,000 

X American Felt Co 3,250,000 500,000 

American Fruit Products Co 1,750,000 

X American Glue Co 2,400,000 

* American Graphophone Co 2,000,000 300,000 

* American Grass Tvpine Co 13,083,000 

X American Hardware Corporation 5,000,000 

X American Hide and Leather Co 24,500,000 8,525,000 

• American Hominy Co 3,750,000 1,250,000 

American Ice Co 40,000,000 1,705,000 

X American Iron & Steel Mfg Co 20,000,000 

American Light & Traction Co 12,127,800 

X American Linseed Co 33,500,000 

• American Lithographic Co 4,000,000 

X American Locomotive Co 49,100,000 1,312,500 



294 APPENDICES. 



Capital Stock Bonded Debt 

Name of Company. Outstanding. Outstanding. 

X American Machine & Ordnance Co $10,000,000 

X American Malting Co 28,940,000 $3,893,000 

* American Packing Co 20,000,000 

X American Perfume , Co 5,000,000 

X American Pipe Mfg. Co 2,000,000 

X American Plow Co 75,000,000 

American Pneumatic Service Co 7,679,000 464,000 

X American Radiator Co 7,893,000 

X American Railway Equipment Co 22,000,000 

American Railways Co 3,750,000 2,500,000 

x American School Furniture Co 8,856,100 1,500,000 

X American Screw Co 3,250,000 

X American Sewer Pipe Co 7,795,700 2,500,000 

X American Shipbuilding Co 15,500,000 

X American Silver & Casket Co 500,000 

X American Smelting & Refining Co 100,000,000 

* American SnufE Co 23,001,700 

X American Steel Foundries' Co 30,000,000 

X American Stove Co 5,000,000 

* American Soda Fountain Co 3,750,000 

X American Sugar Refining Co 89,871,100 

American Telephone & Telegraph Co... 114,748,000 38,000,000 

X American Thread Co 10,890,475 6,513,500 

X American Tube & Stamping Co 2,800,000 

X American Type Founders Co 5,000,000 975,000 

X American Window Glass Co 17,000,000 

X American Woolen Co 49,501,100 295,000 

X American Wringer Co 2,500,000 

X American Writing Paper Co 22,000,000 17,000,000 

X Ames Shovel & Tool Co 5,000,000 

X Anthony & Scoville Co 1,000,000 

Associated Merchants' Co 15,000,000 

* Atlantic Rubber Shoe Co 10,000,000 

X Automatic Weighing Machine Co 3,600,000 

X Automobile & Cycle Parts Co 3,377,500 . 

* Baltimore Brick Co 2,000,000 1,500,000 

Bay State Gas Co 100,000,000 12,000,000 

X Biglow Carpet Co 4,030,000 425,000 

Booth & Co. (A) 5,500,000 

X Borden's Condensed Milk Co 25,000,000 

Boston Suburban Electric Co.'s 4,500,000 

* California Fruit Canners' Assn 2,891,600 

X California Wine Association 4,337,200 

X Cambria Steel Co 45,000,000 

X Casein Co. of America 6,492,000 

Celluloid Company 5,925,000 

* Central Coal & Coke Co 3,750,000 

* Central Fireworks Co 2,673,350 

X Central Foundry Co 14,000,000 4,000,000 

Central Hudson Steamboat Co 1,000,000 500,000 

Chicago & N. W. Granaries Co 1,200,000 600,000 

X Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co 7,500,000 2,500,000 

Chicago Railway Term'l Elevator Co. . . 2,733,770 1,365,500 

City of Chicago Brew'g & Malt'g Co., Ltd. 6,087,500 3,166,000 

X Colorado Fuel & Iron Co 25,000,000 18,300,000 

Commercial Cable Co 13,333,300 20,000,000 

Compressed Air Co 7,156,300 500,000 

X Consolidated Car Heating Co 1,250,000 

X Consolidated Lake Superior Co 86,000,000 

X Consolidated Lime Co 2,500,000 

Consol. Railway Lighting & Refrig. Co. 17,000,000 

X Consolidated Rosendale Cement Co 1,500,000 1,100,000 

X Consolidated Tobacco Co 94,844,600 167,844,600 

X Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co 1,200,000 

X Continental Cotton Oil Co 3,325,686 

X Continental Gin Co 2,000,000 356,000 



APPENDICES. 



295 



Capital Stock 
Name op Company. Outstanding. 

X Corn Products Co $80,000,000 

X Coxe Bros. & Co 3,320,100 

X Crucible Steel Co. of America 50,000,000 

Denver United Breweries, Ltd 2,000,000 

X Diamond Match Co 15,000,000 

X Diamond State Steel Co 4,250,000 

* Distilling Co. of America 74,011,291 

Dominion Securities Co 3,000,000 

East Coast Milling Co 9,000,000 

X Eastman Kodalj Co 19,673,100 

* Electric Boat Co 7,041,000 

* Electric Co. of America 20,368,400 

* Electric Storage Battery Co 16,250,000 

X Electric Vehicle Co 16,800,000 

X Empire Steel & Iron Co 4,462,500 

X Fairmont Coal Co 12,000,000 

Federal Telephone Co 10,000,000 

Fisheries Co 2,532,757 

X General Chemical Co 16,821,500 

X General Electric Co 45,000,000 

Great Lakes Towing Co 3,627,850 

* Great Western Cereal Co 3,000,000 

X Harbison-Walker Refractories Co 22,250,000 

X Herring-Hall Marvin Safe Co 2,300,000 

Hey wood Bros. & Wakefield Co 6,000,000 

* Hydraulic Press Brick Co 3,000,000 

* Illinois Brick Co 7,500,000 

Indianapolis Breweries Co 1,350,000 

International Elevating Co 2,200,000 

International Emery & Corundum Co.. 1,150,000 

X International Fire Engine Co 6,500,000 

International Navigation Co 14,205,000 

International Nickel Co 24,000,000 

X International Paper Co 39,849,400 

International Power Co 7,000,000 

X International Pulp Co 5,000,000 

X International Salt Co 30,000,000 

X International Silver Co 15,051,700 

X International Steam Pump Co 27,500,000 

* Jefferson & Clearfield Coal & Iron Co. . . 3,000,000 

Johns (H. W.) -Manville Co 3,000,000 

Jones (Frank) Brewing Co., Ltd 4,000,000 

X Jones & Laughlin Steel Co * 30,000,000 

X Kanawha & Hocking Coal & Coke Co. . . 3,500,000 

X Keystone Coal & Coke Co 2,500,000 

* Keystone Watch Case Co 3,240,000 

* Kirby Lumber Co 10,000,000 

Knickerbocker Ice Co., Chicago 7,000,000 

X Lackawanna Iron & Steel Co . 20,000,000 

Light, Heat and Power Corporation 934,300 

X Magnus Metal Co 2,000,000 

X Manufacturers & Consumers' Coal Co . . . 5,000,000 

Manville Co 6,000,000 

Maryland Brewing Co 5,000,000 

Massachusetts Breweries Co 6,500,000 

* Massachusetts Electric Companies 29,350,500 

Medina Quarry Co 2,000,000 

Metropolitan Securities Co 30,000,000 

Milwaukee & Chicago Breweries, Ltd. . . 7,548,500 

X Mississippi Wire Glass Co 1,500,000 

r Monongahela River Con. Coal & Coke Co. 30,000,000 

X National Asphalt Co 19,600,000 

X National Biscuit Co 53,061,100 

X National Carbon Co 10,000,000 

X National Casket Co 6,000,000 

X National Enameling & Stamping Co 23,838,400 



Bonded Debt 
Outstanding. 



$1,000,000 

1,000,000 
5,453,000 



1,675,000 

6,000,000 

500,000 



1,500,000 
3,500,000 



800,000 

500,000 

13,686,000 

10,000,000 

9,169,000 

225,000 

3,000,000 
3,840,000 
3,650,000 
3,000,000 

2,500,000 

2,750,000 



1,962,000 

1,800,000 

100,000 



9,125,000 
1,200,000 
2,700,000 
1,140,000 

3,500,000 

9,470,000 

35,963,000 

1,683,000 



296 APPENDICES. 



Name of Company. Capital Stock Bonded Debt 

Outstanding. Outstanding. 

X National Fire Proofing Co $12,500,000 

X National Glass Co 2,317,900 $2,000,00 

X National Lead Co 29,809,400 

X National Roofing & Corrugating Co 5,000,000 

X National Saw Co 1,000,000 

X National Sugar Refining Co 20,000,000 

X New England Breweries Co 2,050,000 

* New England Brick Co 3,100,000 

X New England Cotton Yarn Co 10,000,000 

New York Breweries Co., Ltd 3,000,000 

New York Dock Co 17,000,000 

New York & Kentucky Co 2,000,000 

X Niles-Bement-Pond Co 7,000,000 

Norfolk Refrigerating, Storage & Ice Co. 1,000,000 

North American Company 12,000,000 

Northern Commercial Co 1,622,800 

Northern Securities Co 400,000,000 

Ohio & Indiana Con. Nat. & Ilium. Gas Co. 9,000,000 

* Otis Elevator Co 10,850,000 

X Pacific Coast Biscuit Co 2,950,000 

Pacific Coast Co 12,145,800 

X Pacific Hardware & Steel Co 10,000,000 

Paterson Brewing & Malting Co 3,000,000 

Peninsular & Occidental S. S. Co 2,000,000 

Pennsylvania Central Brewing Co -5,600,000 

X Pennsylvania Furnace Co 2,100,000 

X Pennsylvania Steel Co 27,250,000 

Peoples' Brewing Co. of Trenton 1,100,000 

Pepperell Mfg. Co 2,556,000 

Pittsburg Brewing Co 19,500,000 

X Pittsburgh Coal Co 59,731,900 

X Pittsburgh Stove & Range Co 2,000,000 

X Pittsburgh Valve Foundry & Con. Co.. 1,150,000 

Planters' Compress Co 10,000,000 

Pneumatic Signal Co 3,000,000 

* Pressed Steel Car Co 25,000,000 

♦Pullman Company 74,000,000 

* Quaker Oats Co 11,500,000 

Railways Company General 1,200,000 

X Railway Steel Spring Co 20,000,000 

Railroad Securities Co 8,000,000 

* Reece Buttonhole Machine Co 1,000,000 

X Republic Iro-n & Steel Co .. .' 48,204,000 

X Rochester Optical & Camera Co 2,600,000 

Rock Island Company 150,000,000 

X Rocky Mountain Paper Co 1,350,000 

Rogers (Wm. A.), Ltd 1,350,000 

X Royal Baking Powder Co 20,000,000 

X Rubber Goods Mfg. Co 24,993,100 

St. Louis Breweries, Ltd 8,766,000 

Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co 4,125,000 

Sanitary Laundry Co 2,000,000 

Sea Coast Packing Co 8,000,000 

X Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co 14,200,000 

X Somerset Coal Co 4,000,000 

X Southern Car & Foundry Co 2,000,000 

X Southern Cotton Oil Co 10,000,000 

Springfield Breweries, Ltd 2,300,000 

* Standard Carbide Gas Co 5,000,000 

X Standard Chain Co 2,308,600 

X Standard Milling Co 11,500,000 

X Standard Oil Co 97,500,000 

X Standard Rope & Twine Co 12,000,000 

* Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co 3,973,000 

X Standard Table Oilcloth Co 8,000,000 

* Standard Typewriter Co 1,000,000 



APPENDICES. 297 



Capital Stock Bonded Debt 

Namb op Company. Outstanding. Outstanding. 

X Steel Tired Wheel Co $4,000,000 

X Stillwell-Bierce & Smith Vaile Co 1,012,100 $300,000 

Sterling Co 1,875,000 

X Susquehanna Iron & Steel Co 1,500,000 300,000 

X Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. Co 22,553,060 12,793,000 

X Trenton Potteries Co 3,000,000 

X Union Bag & Paper Co 27,000,000 

X Union Carbide Co 6,000,000 500,000 

X United Box, Board & Paper Co 30,000,000 

X United Button Co 3,000,000 

X Union Steel & Chain Co 1,101,900 

X Union Switch & Signal Co ,. 1,495,550 530,000 

X Union Typewriter Co 18,000,000 

United Breweries Co 11,063,000 3,413,000 

X United Copper Co 50,000,000 

United Electric Securities Co 1,500,000 2,231,000 

X United Engineering & Foundry Co.... 5,550,000 

United Fruit Co 12,369,500 3,000,000 

United Gas & Electric Co 1,600,000 600,000 

United Gas Improvement Co 28,250,000 

X United Matchless Machinery Co 1,010,000 

United Power & Transportation Co 3,125,000 

United Railways Co. of St. Louis 32,411,200 28,272,000 

X United Shoe Machinery Co 20,656,575 

X United States Bobbin & Shuttle Co 1,651,000 300,000 

United States Brewing Co., Ltd 3,500,000 2,000,000 

X United States Cast Iron Pipe & F'nd. Co 25,000,000 

X United States Cotton Duck Corp 13,100,000 

X United States Envelope Co 4,500,000 2,000,000 

X United States Finishing Co 3,000,000 1,750,000 

X United States Glass Co 4,148,100 

United States Gypsum Co 7,500,000 

X United States Leather Co 125,164,600 5,280,000 

X United States Paving Co 2,000,000 

United States Printing Co 3,376,300 

United States Realty & Construction Co. 66,000,000 

X United States Reduction & Refining Co. 9,808,300 3,000,000 

X United States Rubber Co 47,191,500 12,000,000 

^United States Shipbuilding Co 45,000,000 9,000,000 

X United States Steel Corporation 1,018,809,300 358,376,636 

United States Voting Machine Co 1,000,000 

X United Wire & Supply Co 1,000,000 

X Universal Tobacco Co 10,000,000 

X Utica Steam & Mohawk Val. Cotton Mills 2,000,000 

X Virginia Carolina Chemical Co 39.948,400 

X Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co 8,970,000 10,000,000 

X Vulcan Detinning Co 3,500,000 

X Washburn Wire Co 3,750,000 

Western Stone Co 2,250,000 488,000 

Western Union Telegraph Co 120,912,360 25,139,000 

* Westinghouse Air Brake Co 10,950,000 •. . 

Westinghouse Aut. Air & Steam Coup. Co. 5,000,000 

X Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co 14,788,276 3,200,000 



X Wisconsin Lime & Cement Co 5,000,000 

X Yellow Pine Co 1,845,700 



$5,803,231,600 $1,169,217,251 

Total Stocks $5,803,231,600 

Total Bonds 1,169,217,251 



Total Capitalization $6,972,448,851 

Number of Trusts 287. 



298 APPENDICES. 



The foregoing list embraces 287 industrial combinations or trusts, 
and includes practically everything of importance in the United States. 
Of these trusts, those marked "x" enjoy direct tariff benefits in more 
or less degree. There are 168 of them. 

Those marked "*" probably receive some benefit from the tariff. 
There are 38 of these. Two hundred and six trusts, then, are more or 
less tariff protected. The products of most of the remaining 81 trusts 
are on the tariff list, but their protection is only nominal. 

Of this list of trusts, 21 derive their strength chiefly from patent 
rights; 28 are based on municipal or other franchises, rights of way, 
etc.; 19 are based on control of coal and other lands, mines, ore de- 
posits, etc., exclusively. The balance of the unprotected trusts have 
in most cases some other element of monopoly which contributes to 
their strength. Where the element of monopoly is small, the general 
financial standing of the trust in nearly all cases, is weak. 

TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OP 168 TARIFF PROTECTED TRUSTS. 

Stocks $4,182,812,902 

Bonds 914,081,110 

Total $5,096,894,012 

TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OF 119 OTHER TRUSTS. 

Stocks $1,580,418,698 

Bonds 255,136,100 

Total .'. .$1,835,554,798 

Proportion of trusts enjoying tariff benefits, 59 per cent. 

Proportion of capital in trusts enjoying tariff benefits, 74 per cent. 

Total capitalization of 206 trusts more or less protected by tariff, 
$5,571,616,153. 

Total capitalization of 81 trusts with little or no protection, $1,380,- 
832,657. 

Proportion of trusts not protected, 28 per cent. 

Proportion of capital in trusts not protected, 19 per cent. 

ESTIMATED STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER IN UNITED 
STATES. 

Per Per 

Gold. capita. Silver. capita. 

1893 $597,697,685 8.93 1893 $615,861,484 9.20 

1896 ... 599,597,964 8.40 1896 628,728,071 8.81 

1905 ... 1,357,881,186 16.31 1905 686,401,168 8.24 



$2,555,176,835 33.64 $1,930,990,723 26.25 

PRODUCTION OF GOLD. 

Gold.. Value. Silver. Value. 

1893.. $35,955,000 1893 $46,800,000 

1896* 53,088,000 1896 39,654,600 

1904 80,464,000 1904 33,456,000 



$169,507,000 $119,910,600 



APPENDICES. 



299 



GOLD AND SILVER STATISTICS. 

Official Table of Stock of Coin in the United States June 30, 1905. 



Item. 

Estimated stock of coin June 
30, 1904 

Net imports United States 
coin fiscal year 1905 

United States coin returned 
in transports from the 
Philippine Islands, not re- 
corded at the custom- 
house, fiscal year 1905... 

Coinage, fiscal year 1905... 



Gold. 
.$1,285,080,291 



79,983.692 



Silver. 

$674,857,600 
302,129 



a843,142 
9,123,971 



Total. 

$1,959,937,891 
302,129 



843,142 
89,107,663 



Total I $1,365,06.3,9831 $685,126,842| $2,050,190,825 

Loss : 

Net exports United States 
coin fiscal year 1905.. 

United States and Hawai- 
ian coin melted for 



recoinage (face value). 
United States coin esti- 
mated to have been used 
in the arts 



52,172,615 



3,431,211 



3,500,000 



1,973,788 



100,000 



52,172,615 



5,404,999 



3,600,000 



Total 



$59,103,826 $2,073,788 $61,177,614 



Estimated stock of coin 
in the United States 
June 30, 1905 



$1,305,960,157 



$683,053,054 



$1,989,013,211 



a Of this amount $437,578 vv^ere in one-dollar pieces. 

Note. — The number of standard silver dollars coined to June 30, 1905, 
was 570,272,610, which, added to the Hawaiian dollar coinage of 500,000, 
plus the numher imported from the Philippine Islands — 150,000 — and the 
number returned in Government transports from the Philippine Islands — 
437,578 — equals 571,360,188. Since July 1, 1898, the number of standard 
silver dollars exported in transports has been 2,495,000, and since 1883 
the number melted has been 183,083 (this report, page 21), and the number 
of Hawaiian dollars melted to June 30, 1905, has been 453,240, a total 
disposition of 3,131,323, leaving in the United States June 30, 1905, 
568,228,865 standard silver dollars, and $114,824,189 in subsidiary silver 
coins. — Mint Report, 1905. 



300 



APPENDICES. 



WORLD'S STOCK 

The monetary systems and an estimate of the approximate stock 
of the world at the close of the calendar year 1904 are shown in the 
being used only in the absence of official information. 



Monetary Systems and Approximate Stocks of Money, in the Aggregate and 





II 


Monetary 
unit. 


Popvila- 
tion. 


Stock of gold. 


Country. 


In banks 
and pub- 
lic treas- 
uries. 


In circu- 
lation. 


Total. 


United States .... 
Austria Hungary . 

Belg-ium 

British Empire: 

Australasia 

Canada 


Gold.. 
..do.. 
..do.. 

..do.. 
..do.. 


Dollar 

Crown 

Franc 

Pound sterling 

Dollar 

Poimd sterling 
Pound sterling 

and rupee. 
Pound sterling 

Dollar 

Leva 


Thou- 
sands. 
82,600 
48,600 
7,000 

5,700 

5,800 

43,500 

295,200 

7,100 

5,300 

3,700 

1,600 

2,600 

9,800 

2,800 

39,000 

56,400 

2,400 

1,300 

33,200 

49,800 

13,600 

5,400 

2,300 

5,400 

6,300 

128,200 

2,600 

5,200 

5,200 

1,800 

16,000 

3,200 

3,900 

1,300 

300 

100 

100 

600 

4,600 

1,000 

2,600 

18,700 

5.200 

3,300 

24,000 

4,100 
330,100 


Thou- 
sands 
a $887,800 
b 240,000 
b 19.100 

b 111,600 
b 52,500 
b 194,000 
e 53.300 

b 41,000 


Thou- 
sands. 
$460,400 
b 65,000 
d 10,900 

d 17.000 

(c) 

d 3.39,200 

d 210,600 

b 15,000 


Thou- 
sands. 

$1,348,200 
b 305 000 

bd 30.000 

bd 128.600 
b 52,500 


United Kingdom 


..do.. 
..do.. 


d 533,200 
de 263.900 


South Africa . . . 
Straits Settle- 
ments f . . 


..do.. 

SHver. 
Gold.. 
. do. . 


b 56,000 
(c) 




g 1,900 

-d 20,000 

b 17,400 

d 12,000 

f 4,400 

b 519,700 

b 197,300 

b 5,400 

b 1,000 

b 131,400 

b 42,700 

b 8,600 

b 27,200 

b 6.800 

b 5.300 

b 10.400 

b 526,900 

b 3,300 

b 1,000 

b 72,100 
b 400 


(c) 

(c) 

(c) 

d 75,000 

(0 

b 406,700 

d 689.400 

b200 

(0 

(c) 

b 10,100 

(c) 

b 9,300 

(c) 

(c) 

(c) 

b 256,800 

(c) 

(c) 

(0 
(c) 


g 1,900 


Cuba . . 


Peseta 

Crown 

Piaster 

Markkaa 

Fr.anc 

Mark 


d 20,000 




..do.. 


b 17,400 


Eevnt 


..do.. 


d 87,000 




..do.. 


g 4,400 


France 

Germany . . 


..do., 
.do 


b 926.400 
bd 886,700 




.do. . 


Drachma 

Gourde 


b 5.600 


Haiti 


..do. . 


b 1,000 


Italy 


..do. . 


b 131.400 


Japan . . 


do . 


Yen 


b 52,800 




..do. . 


Peso 


b 8,600 


Netherlands 


. do. . 


Florin 

Crown 

Milreis 

Lei 


b 36.500 




..do.. 


b 6,800 


Portugal. 


. do. . 


b 5,300 


Roumania 


do 


b 10,400 




..do. . 


Ruble 

Dinar 

Tical 


b 783,700 




..do.. 


b 3,300 




..do.. 


b 1.000 


South American 
States: 

Argentina 

Bolivia 


..do.. 
Silver. 
Gold. . 
..do.. 
..do.. 
..do.. 


Peso 


b 72,100 


Boliviano 

Milreis 

Peso 


b 400 


Brazil 


(c) 


Chile 


b 9,500 

b200 

b 1.700 


(0 
(c) 
(c) 


b 9,500 


Colombia 


Dollar 

Sucre 

Pound sterling 

Florin 

Franc 

Peso . ....... 


b200 
b 1,700 


Guiana (British) 
Guiana (Dutch) 
Guiana (French) 
Paraguay. ...... 


..do.. 

..do.. 

..do.. 

.do 


(c) 


b 1,000 


(c) 


b 1,000 

(c) 


blOO 

b 3,900 

b 11.200 

b700 
b 72.100 
b 17,000 
b 20,700 
d 10,000 

b 2,000 


(c) 

(0 

(c) 
b 4,800 

(c) 
b 3,200 
d 8,900 
d 40,000 

(c) 


blOO 


Peru 


..do.. 


Sol 


b 3,900 


Uruguay . . 


..do . 


Peso 

Bolivar 

Peseta 

Crown 

Franc 

Piaster 

Peso 


b 11,200 


Venezuela 

Spain 


..do.. 
..do.. 


b5,500 
b 72,100 


Sweden 

Switzerland 


..do., 
.do. . 


b 20,200 
bd 29,600 


Turkey 


..do.. 


d 50,000 


Central American 
States 


Silver i 
do 


b 2,000 


China 


Tael 


(c) 














Total 


1.298,500 


3,364,600 


2,622,500 


5,987.100 











a In United States Treasury and national banks. 

h Official information furnished through United States representatives. 

c No information. 

d Estimate, Bureau of the Mint. 

e The figures for the total stock of gold in India are for the net imports 
since 1893-94 the production of the country. The amount in the Govern- 
ment Treasury is from official advices. The net imports of gold since 
1835-36 — when the records begin — amount to $817,374,610 and the pro- 
duction recorded to $103,209,754. The tide of gold and silver has been 
flowing into India for centuries. 



APPENDICES. 



301 



OF MONEY. 

of gold, silver, and uncovered paper money in the different countries 
following table compiled from official and unofficial sources, the latter 



Per Capita, in the Principal Countries of tlie World, December 31,1904. 



Stock of Silver. 


Uncovered 
paper. 




Per capita. 




Full 
tender. 


Limited 
tender. 


Total. 


Gold. 


Silver. 


Paper. 


Total. 


Thousands. 
$573,200 
(0 
d 15,000 


Thousands. 
$111,900 
b 79,700 
d 9,700 

b 6,100 

b 6,700 

b 113,400 


Thousands. 
$685,100 
b 79.700 
d 24,700 

b 6,100 

b 6,700 

b 113,400 

b 603,800 

b 20,000 

b 19,200 

g 1,900 

d 5,000 

b 6,200 

b 15,000 

1 g400 

b411,100 

b 210,200 

blOO 

b 2,500 

b 25,600 

b 41,300 

b 52,800 

b 56,800 

b 3,000 

b 8,400 

b600 

b 101,900 

b 1,500 

b 22,300 

(0 
b 3.800 

bSOO 
b 2,900 

(c) 

b200 

(c) 

(c) 

b 2,400 

b 3,200 

b 4,600 

b 173,700 

b 7,600 

h 10,700 

d 40,000 

b 5,600 
d 350.000 


Thousands 

$559,900 

b 54,700 

b 111,900 


$16.33 
6.27 
4.28 

22.56 

9.05 

12.26 

.89 

7.89 

' ' * ".si ' 

12.50 
6.69 
8.87 
1.57 
23.75 
15.72 
2.33 

.77 
3.96 
1.06 

.63 
6.76 
2.96 

.98 
1 65 
6.11 
1.27 

.19 

13.86 
.22 

■ 2.97" 

.05 

1.31 


$8.30 
1.64 
3.53 

1.07 
1.16 
2.61 
2.05 

2.81 

3.62 
.51 

3.12 

2.39 

1.53 

.14 

10.54 

3.73 
.04 

1.92 
.77 
.83 

3.89 
10.52 

1.30 

1.56 
.10 
.79 
.57 

4.29 

■■2.ii" 

.02 
.91 

■■*".67" 


$6.78 

1.13 

15.99 

11.22' 

2.71 

.11 

3.77 
1.11 

"4.11 

■■3'.25' 
2.84 
3.01 
6.75 
2.69 
4..53 
2.03 
3.59 
9.48 
2.69 
11.29 
1.79 

■■■'.96' 

55.02 
1.78 

23.00 
9.59 
190.00 
1.00 
2.00 
2.00 
6.00 

17.50 

■■6.69' 
5.63 
6.97 

13.02 


$31.41 

9.04 

23.80 

23.63 




b 65,100 

b 118,100 

b 32,400 


21.43 




17 58 


b 603,800 


3.05 




b 20,000 

b 3,200 

g 1,000 

d 5,000 

b 6,200 

b 15,000 

g400 

b 63,700 

b 173,100 


10.70 


b 16,000 
g900 
(c) 


b 20,000 
g 4,100 

"b 10,706' 


7.39 

2.13 

15.62 

13.19 




10.40 




g 9,100 

b 110,900 

b 169,800 

b 16,200 

b 3,500 

b 150,700 

b 101,200 

b 48,900 

b 51,200 

b 6,200 

b 61,000 

b 11,300 


4 96 


b 347,400 

b 37,100 

b 100 


37.13 

22.46 

9.12 


b 1,000 
b 11,500 

i) 52 .866 


b 1,500 
b 14,100 
b 41 ,300 


5.38 
9.26 
3.92 
8 11 


b 52,800 


b 4,000 
b 3,000 
b 8.400 
b600 
b 101,900 
b 1,500 


26.76 
6.95 


' 


13.83 


(c) 


3.54 
6.90 


(c) ~ 
b 22,300 


b 2,500 


2.80 
4.48 






b 286,100 

b 3,200 

b 368,100 

b 30,700 

b 741,000 

b 1,300 

b600 

b200 

b600 

b 10,500 


68.88 


b 3,800 




4.11 




b300 
b 2,900 


23 02 


(c) 


13.47 
190 05 


(c) 


blOO 


2 38 
2 00 




b200 


10.00 


2.00 


14 00 




6.00 






.17 

.85 
11.20 

.27 
3.85 
3.89 
8.97 
2.08 

.49 


■■".52' 
3.20 
1.77 
9.29 
1.46 
3.24 
1.67 

1.36 
1.06 


17 67 




b 2,400 

b 3,200 

b 4,600 

b 173,700 

b 7,600 

h 10,700 

d 10.000 


1.37 






14 40 






2 04 


(c) 


b 125,100 
b 29.300 
b 23,000 


19.83 
10 98 


(c) 
d 30,000 


19.18 
3 75 


b 5,600 


b 53,400 


14 87 


d 350,000 




1 06 












2,123,300 


1,007,100 


3,130,400 


3.392,500 


4.61 


2.41 


2.61 


9.63 



f Includes Straits Settlements, the Malay States, Ceylon, and Johore, 

g L Economiste Europeen, January, 1905. 

h C Cramer Frey. 

i Except Costa Rica and British Honduras — gold standard countries. 

Note — The value of the monetary stock of silver standard countries has 
been changed to conform to the decline in silver values. The monetary 
stock of Mexico and other countries where the Mexican dollar circulates 
is given in Mexican dollars at bullion value. 



302 



APPENDICES. 



The foregoing table of the world's stock of money is for December 
31, 1904. It is submitted as giving the best information obtainable, 
but unsatisfactory in many respects, owing to defective returns. The 
world's stock of gold in monetary use foots up $5,987,100,000; of 
silver, $3,130,400,000, and of uncovered paper, $3,392,500,000, show- 
ing, as compared with the estimate of December 31, 1903, an increase 
in gold of $301,400,000, decrease in silver of $82,800,000, and in 
uncovered paper of $119,000,000. 

The most important gains in gold were as follows: India, 
$200,700,000; United States, $27,800,000; Germany, $85,300,000; 
Egypt, $27,000,000; Austria-Hungary, $18,200,000; Netherlands, 
$8,100,000. Countries showing a decrease were France, $41,900,000 
(France has submitted a new estimate which this Bureau adopts as' 
ofl&cial), and Japan, $17,000,000. The decrease shown in silver is 
due to a reduction in the estimates for Siam and Italy. 

On December 31, 1904, the United States, Great Britain, Germany, 
Austria-Hungary, France, and Russia, with a total population of 
398,300,000, held $4,783,200,000, or over 79 per cent, of the world's 
stock of gold. 

Coinage op Nations. 



Calendar year. 


Gold. 


Silver. 


1902 


$220,405,125 
240,496,274 
455,427,085 


$193,715,362 

208,367,849 


1903 


1904 


172,270,379 



The above figures represent, as nearly as this Bureau has been able 
to ascertain, the total value of the gold and silver coinages executed 
in the world during the years given. 

The total of these coinages does not correctly represent the amount 
of new gold and new silver made into coins during the year, for the 
reason that the coinages as reported include the value of domestic and 
foreign coins melted for recoinage, as well as old material, plate, etc., 
used in coinage. 

Coinage of Gold and Silver of the Mints of the World for the 
Calendar Years since 1873. 



Gold. 



Silver. 



Calendar year. 



Fine 
ounces. 



Value. 



Pine 
ounces. 



Value. 



1873 12,462,890 257,630,802 101,741,421 131,544,464 

1874 6,568,279 135,778,387 79,610,875 102,931,232 

1875 9,480,892 195,987,428 92,747,118 119,915,467 

1876 10,309,645 213,119,278 97,899,525 126,577,164 

1877 9,753,196 201,616,466 88,449,796 114,359,332 

1878 9,113,202 188,386,611 124,671,870 161,191,913 

1879 4,390,167 90,752,811 81,124,555 104,888,313 

1880 7,242,951 149,725,081 65,442,074 84,611,974 

1881 7,111,864 147,015,275 83,539,051 108,010,086 

1882 4,822,851 99,697,170 85,685,996 110,785,934 

1883 5,071,882 104,845,114 84,541,904 109,306,705 

1884 4,810,061 99,432,795 74,120,127 95,832,084 

1885 4,632,273 95,757,582 98,044,475 126,764,574 

1886 4,578,310 94,642,070 96,566,844 124,854,101 

1887 6,046,510 124,992,465 126,388,502 163,411,397 

1888 6,522,346 134,828,855 104,354,000 134,922,344 

1889 8,170,611 168,901,519 " 107,788,256 139,362,595 

1890 7,219,725 149,244,965 117,789,228 152,293,144 

1891 5,782,463 119,534,122 106,962,049 138,294,367 

1892 8,343,387 172,473,124 120,282,947 155,517,347 

1893 11,243,342 232,420,517 106,697,783, 137,952,690 

1894 11,025,680 227,921,032 87,472,523 113,095,788 

1895 11,178,855 231,087,438 98,128,832 126,873,642 

1896 9,476,639 195,899,517 123,394,239 159,540,027 

1897 21,174,850 437,722,992 129,775,082 167,790,006 

1898 19,131,244 395,477,905 115,461,020 149,282,936 

1899 22,548,101 466,110,614 128,566,167 166,226,964 

1900 17,170,053 354,936,497 143,362,948 185,358,156 

1901 12,001,537 248,093,787 107,439,666 138,911,891 

1902 10,662,098 220,405,125 149,826,725, 193,715,362 

1903 11,634,007 240,496,274 161,159,508 208,367,849 

1904 22,031,285 455,427,085 al45,332,335 172,270,379 

Total 821,711,196 6,650,360,703 3,434,367,441 1,424,760,227 

a Actual weight consumed in coinage. 

— Report of the Director of the Mint, 1905. 



APPENDICES. 



303 



Estimated Stock of Gold and Silver in the United States and tlie Amount 
Per Capita at tlie Close of eacli Fiscal Year since 1873. 



Fiscal year 

ended 
June 30 — 


Population. 


Total coin and bullion. 


Per capita. 


Gold. 


Silver. 


Gold. 


Silver. 


Total 
metallic. 


1873 

1874 

1875 

1876 

1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

1885 

1886 

1887 

1888 

1889 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904.' 

1905 


41,677,000 
42,796,000 
43,951,000 
45,137,000 
46,353,000 
47,598;000 
48,866,000 
50,155,783 
51,316,000 
52,495,000 
53,693,000 
54,911,000 
56,148,000 
57,404,000 
58,680,000 
59,974,000 
61,289,000 
62,622,250 
63,975,000 
65,520,000 
66,946,000 
68,397,000 
69,878,000 
71,390,000 
72,937,000 
74,522,000 
76,148,000 
76,891,000 
77,754,000 
79,117,000 
80,847,000 
81,867,000 
83,259,000 


$135,000,000 
147,379,493 
121,134,906 
130,056,907 
167,501.472 
213,199,977 
245,741,837 
351,841,206 
478,484,538 
506,757,715 
542,732,063 
545,500,797 
588,697,036 
590,774,461 
654,520,335 
705,818,855 
680,063,505 
695,563,029 
646,582,852 
664,275,335 
597,697,685 
627,293,201 
636,229,825 
599,597,964 
696,270,542 
861,514,780 
962,865,505 
1,034,439,264 
1,124,652,818 
1,192,395,607 
1,249,552,756 
1,327,672,672 
1,357,881,186 


$6,149,305 
10,355,478 
19,367,995 
36,415,992 
56,464,427 
88,047,907 
117,526,341 
148,522,678 
175,384,144 
203,217,124 
233,007,985 
255,568,142 
283,478,788 
312,252,844 
352,993,566 
386,611,108 
420,548,929 
463,211,919 
522,277,740 
570,313,544 
615,861,484 
624,347,757 
625,854,949 
628,728,071 
634,509,781 
637,672,743 
639,286,743 
647,371,030 
661,205,403 
670,540,105 
677,448,933 
682,383,277 
686,401,168 


$3.23 

3.44 

2.75 

2.88 

3.61 

4.47 

5.02 

7.01 

9.32 

9.65 

10.10 

9.93 

10.48 

10.29 

11.15 

11.76 

11.09 

11.10 

10.10 

10.15 

8.93 

9.18 

9.10 

8.40 

9.55 

11.56 

12.64 

13.45 

14.47 

15.07 

15.45 

16.22 

16.31 


$0.15 
.24 
.44 
.81 
1.21 
1.85 
2.40 
2.96 
3.41 
3.87 
4.34 
4.65 
5.05 
5.44 
^6.00 
6.44 
6.86 
7.39 
8.16 
8.70 
9.20 
9.13 
8.97 
8.81 
8.70 
8.56 
8.40 
8.42 
8.50 
8.48 
8.38 
8.33 
8.24 


$3.38 

3.68 

3.19 

3.69 

4.82 

6.32 

7 42 

9.97 

12.73 

13.52 

14.44 

14.58 

15.53 

15.73 

17.15 

18.20 

17.95 

18.49 

18.26 

18.85 

18.13 

18.31 

18.07 

17.21 

18.25 

20.12 

21.04 

21.87 

22.97 

23.55 

23.83 

24.55 

24.55 



304 



APPENDICES. 



No. 19. — Pboddct of Gold and Silver in the United States from 1792 
TO 1844, AND Annually Since. 



(The estimate for 1792-1873 is by R. W. Raymond, commissioner and since 
by Director of tbe Mint.) 





Gold. ' 


Silver. 


Year. 


1 Fine 
ounces. 


Value. 


Fine 
ounces. 


Commercial 
Value. 


1792 to July 31, 1834 


677,250 

362,812 

48,762 
55,341 
43,005 


$14,000,000 

7,500,000 

1,008,000 

1,140,000 

889,000 


Insignificant. 

193,400 
38,700 
38,700 
38,700 




July 31, 1834, to 

Dec. 31, 1844 

1845 


$253,400 
50,200 


1846 


50,300 


1847 


50,600 


Total 


1,187,170 


24,537,090 


309,500 


404,500 


1848 

1849 


483,750 
1,935,000 
2,418,750 
2,660,625 
2,902,500 
3,144,375 
2,902,500 
2,660,625 
2,660,625 
2,660,625 
2,418,750 
2,418,750 
2,225,250 
2,080,125 
1,896,300 
1,935,000 
2,230,087 
2,574,759 
2,588,062 
1 2,502,196 
1 2,322,000 
2,394,562 
1 2,418,750 
2,104,312 
1,741,500 


10,000,000 
40,000,000 
50,000,000 
55,000,000 
60,000,000 
65,000,000 
60,000,000 
55,000,000 
55,000,000 
55,000,000 
50,000,000 
50,000,000 
46,000,000 
43,000,000 
39,200,000 
40,000,000 
46,100,000 
53,225,000 
53,500,000 
51,725,000 
48,000,000 
49,500,000 
50,000,000 
43,500,000 
36,000,000 


38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

77,300 

116,000 

1,546,900 

3,480,500 

6,574,200 

8,507,800 

8,701,200 

7,734,400 

10,441,400 

9,281,200 

9,281,200 

12,375,000 

17,789,100 

22,236,300 


50,500 
50,700 


1850 


50,900 


1851 


51,700 


1852 


51,300 


1853 


52,200 


1854 


52,200 


1855 


52,000 


1856 


52,000 


1857 


52,400 


1858 

1859 


52,000 
105,100 


1860 

1861 


156,800 
2,062,000 


1862 


4,684,800 


1863 


8,842,300 


1864 


11,443,000 


1865 


11,642,200 


1866 


10,356,400 


1867 


13,866,200 


1868 


12,306,900 


1869 

1870 

1871 

1872 


12,297,600 
16,434,000 
23,588,300 
29,396,400 



Total I 58,279,778|1,204,750,000| 118,568,200 1 157,749,900 



1873 

1874 
1875 
1876 
1877 
1878 
1879 
1880 
1881 
1882 
1883 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1898 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 



1,741,500 

1,620,122 

1,619,009 

1,931,575 

2,268,662 

2,477,109 

1,881,787 

1,741,500 

1,678.612 

1,572,187 

1,451,250 

1,489.950 

1.538,373 

1,686,788 

1,603,049 

1,604,478 

1,594,775 

1,588,877 

1,604,840 

1,597,098! 

1,739,3231 

1,910.813 

2.254,760 

2,568,132 

2,774,9351 

3,118.8981 

3.437,2101 

3.829,8971 

8,805.500] 

3,870,0001 

8.560.000! 

8,892,4801 



36,000,000 

33,490,900 

33,467,900 

39,929,200 

46,897,400 

51,206,400 

38,900,000 

36,000,000 

34,700,000 

32,500,000 

30,000,000 

30,800,0001 

31,801.000' 

34,869.000 

33,136,000! 

33,167,500 

32,967,000 

32,845,000 

33,175,000 

33,015,000 

85,955,000 

39,500,000 

46,610,000 

53,088.000 

57,863.000 

64,468.000 

71.058.400 

79.171.000 

78,666.700 

80.000,000 

73,591,700 

80,464,700 



27,650,400 
28,868,200 
24,539,300 
29,996,200 
30,777,800 
35,022,300 
31,565,500 
30,318,700 
33,257,800 
36,196,900 
35,732.800 
37,743,800 
39,909,400 
39,694,000 
41,721,600 
45,792,7001 
50,094,5001 
54,516,300 
58,830,000 
68,500,000 
60,000,000 
49,500,000 
55,727,000 
58,834,800 
53,860,000 
54,438,000 
54,764,500 
57,647,000 
55,214,000 
55,500,000 
54,300,000 
57,682,800 



35,881,600 
36,917,500 
30,485,900 
34,919,800 
36,991,500 
40,401,000 
35,477,100 
34,717,000 
37,657,500 
41,105,900 
39,618,400 
41.921,300 
42,503,500 
39,482,400 
40,887,200 
43,045,100 
46,838,400 
57,242,100 
57,630,000 
55,662,500 
46,800,000 
31,422,100 
36,445,500 
39,654,600 
32,316,000 
32,118,400 
32,858,700 
35,741,100 
33,128,400 
29.415,000 
29,322,000 
33,456,000 



Total I 71.052,989|1,468,793,800|1,442,696,300|1,242,063,500 

— Report of the Director of the Mint (1905). 



Grand total. 



APPENDICES. 



305 



Premium on gold, and gold value of United States legal-tender notes 
from 1862 to January 1, 1879. 





Average cur- 


Average gold 




rency value of 


value of 




gold each 


U. S. notes each 




calendar year 


calendar year 


Year. 


during suspen- 


during suspen- 




sion of specie 


sion of specie 




payments, 


payments, 




Jan. 1, 1863, to 


Jan. 1, 1862, to 




Jan. 1, 1879. 


Jan. 1, 1879. 


1862 


113.3 


88.3 


1863 


145.2 


68.9 


1864 


203.3 
157.3 


49.2 


1865 


63.6 


1866 


140.9 
138.2 
139.7 


71 


1867 


72.4 


1868 


71.6 


1869 


133 


75.2 


1870 


114.9 
111.7 
112.4 
113.8 


87 


1871 


89.5 


1872 


89 


1873 


87.9 


1874 


111.2 


89.9 


1875 


114.9 
111.5 
104.8 
100.8 
1 


87 


1876 


89.8 


1877 


95.4 


1878 


99.2 




1 



The total redemptions of notes in gold and the exports of that metal 
during each fiscal j'^ear since the resumption of specie payments have 
been as follows: 



Fiscal 


United States 


Treasury notes 
of 1890. 


Total. 


1 Exports of 


year. 


notes. 1 


1 


1 gold. 


1879 


$7,976,698 




$7,976,698 
3,780,638 


$4,587,614 


1880 


3,780,638 





3,639,025 


1881 


271,750 





271,750 


2,565,132 


1882 


40,000 




40,000 


32,587,880 


1883 


75,000 




75,000 


11,600,888 


1884 


590,000 




590,000 


41,081,957 


1885 


2,222,000 





2,222,000 


8,477,892 


1886 


6,863,699 




6,863,699 


42 952,191 


1887 


4,224,073 




4,224,073 


9,701,187 


1888 


692 596 




692,596 


18,376,234 


1889 


730,143 




730,143 


59,952,285 


1890 


732,386 




732,386 


17,274,491 


1891 


5,986,070 





5,986,070 


86,362,654 


1892 


5,352,243 


$3,773,600 


9,125,843 


50,195,327 


1893 


55,319,125 


46,781,220 


102,100,345 


108,680,844 


1894 


68,242,408 


16,599,742 


84,842,150 


76,978,061 


1895 


109,783,800 


7,570,398 


117,354,198 


66,468,481 


1896 


153,307,591 


5,348,365 


158,655,956 


112,409,947 


1897 


68,372,923 


9,828,991 


78,201,914 


40,361,580 


1898 


22,301,710 


2,696,253 


24,997,963 


15,406,391 


1899 


18,645,015 


6,997,250 


25,642,265 


37,522,086 


1900 


28,637,501 


6,960,836 


35,598,337 


48,266,759 


1901 


23,776,433 


446,678 


24,223,111 


53,185,177 


1902 


17,482,590 


1,274,590 


18.757,180 


48,568,950 


1903 


7,154,718 


1,112,527 


8,267,245 


47,090,595 


1904 


11.081,068 


474.126 


11,555,194 





Total . I 623,64 2,178 | 109.864.576 | 733.506,754 | 1,044,293.628 
-U. S. Treasury Dept. Circular, No. 72, July 1, 1904. 



306 



APPENDICES. 



NET EXPORTS UNITED STATES GOLD COIN. 

The net exports of United States gold coin from January 1, 1870, 
to June 30, 1905, was $683,437,346, as shown hy the following table: 

Imports and Exports of United States Gold Coin. 



Period. 



I Imports. I Exports. 



Jan. 1 to July 1, 1870. 
Fiscal year — 

1871 

1872 

1873 

1874 

1875 

1876 

1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

1885 

1886 

1887 

1888 

1889 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 



$7,325,783 

3,654,859 

18,207,559 

7,577,422 

4,796,630 

8,112,265 

3,824,692 

3,352,090 

1,687,231 

5,862,509 

5,181,512 

1,403,619 

1,949,552 

2,824,146 

15,432,443 

6,074,899 

30,790,892 

10,752,673 

10,189,614 

57,728,857 

40,590,947 

7,779,123 

8,659,856 

3,311,105 

3,870,320 

1,519,756 

5,780,607 

2,236,399 



$6,384,250 

55,491,719 

40,391,357 

35,661,863 

28,766,943 

59,309,770 

27,542,861 

21,274,565 

6,427,251 

4,120,311 

1,687,973 

1,741,364 

29,805,289 

4,802,454 

12,242,021 

2,345,809 

5,400,976 

3,550,770 

3,211,399 

4,143,939 

3,951,736 

67,704,900 

42,841,963 

101,844,087 

64,303,840 

55,096,639 

77,789,892 

23,646,565 

8,402,216 

27,425,587 

30,674,511 

8,425,947 

9,370,841 

18,041,660 

15,682,424 

54,409,014 



Total 1280,477,3601 963,914,706 



Net exports I 



I 683,437,346 



— Mint Report, 1905, p. 34. 



INDEX 



A 

Abroad, evidence from 56 

Abroad, what we sell 171 

Adams, John Quincy, on who pays the tariff tax 159 

Adams, John Quincy, on increased cost of necessaries of life 167 

Administration, economy of 4 

Administration, Republican 9 

Agreements, International Steel 42 

Agriculture and the tariff, Hon. L. P. Livingston 168 

Agricultural implements, exports of 59 

Agricultural implements, exported 75 

Agricultural machinery, Canadian Tariff Commission on 168 

Agricultural machinery, increased cost of 167 

Agricultural machinery, sold cheaper abroad 58 

Alabama, wages in, in 1904 239 

Aldrich, Senator, admits it 46 

Aldrich resolution, purchase of material for Panama Canal, vote in 

Senate on 276 

Allison, Senator, commends tariff of 1846 31 

Amend the Constitution, Roosevelt wants to 224 

American citizenship 7 

Americans to install Russian telephones 143 

American and foreign laborer, productivity of 156 

American goods, cheapness of 133 

American manufactures, sold cheaper abroad 58 

American tools, cheaper in Germany 60 

Annual report, Mr. Foster, 1892, loss of gold by export 102 

Annual report, 1890, Mr. Windom 101 

Ante-election estimates •. 100 

Anti-trust act of 1890, proceedings under 216-225 

Anti-trust act of 1890, vote on 213 

Anti-trust bills. Democrats first to introduce 203 

Anti-trust bills, list of 203 

Anti-Trust Law, Morgan 209 

Appeal to the country 10 

Appendix A 244 

Appendix B 252 

Appendix C 267 

Appendix D 293 

Articles upon which duty at the rate of 100 per cent.' and over 

are collected. 248 

Appropriations, extravagant, Fifty-ninth Congress 153 

Argument, Hon. Leonidas F. Livingston 168 

Arid lands, reclamation of 7 

Army 8 

Asphalt Trust and Venezuela, Roosevelt 194 

Atkinson, Mr. Edward, on panic of 1857 , , 32 



308 INDEX. 



Attorney-General's report, comments on 224 

Average tariff rates, 1791-1905 17 

Average duty, 1821-1861 31 

B 

Babcock (Rep.) gives evidence 47 

Bacon's amendment to tlie Aldrich resolution, vote in Senate on 277 

Bacon, Senator, on steel rails cheaper abroad 49 

Bailey amendment to Railroad Rate bill, vote in Senate on 270 

Balance of trade against us 102 

Balw^in Locomotive Works bids for engines for canal 131 

Bank funds turned into cash 110 

Bid for rails for Panama Canal 131 

Bids for engines for Panama Canal 131 

Big military and naval force, Roosevelt on 193 

Big stick, the motive behind 193 

Bishop, Secretary, letter from 127 

Blackmail collections, Philippine, vote in House on 290 

Blaine, Mr., on tariff 1846 21-22 

Blaine, Mr., compares American and foreign labor.. 156 

Blaine, Mr., on taxing necessaries of life ; 140 

B.aine, Mr., for free hides 162 

Bland amendment 209 

Bond plate order, Mr. Foster 105 

Boots and shoes, prices of 164 

Bryan on Roosevelt's administration 145 

Building material taxed, lizard free 139 

Byrd, Adam M., on increased cost of agricultural machinery 167 

C 

Campaign funds, Parker's charge concerning 119 

Campaign funds, Parker's charge concerning proven 122 

Canal, bids for engines for 131 

Canal, Isthmian 7 

Canal, Panama, bid for rails for 131 

Canadian Tariff Commission on agricultural machinery 168 

Cannon, Mr., denounces ship subsidies 132 

Cannon, Speaker, opinion of 73 

Cannon, Speaker, statistics 64 

Capital and labor 3 

Carpet manufacturing increased 27 

Cash and gold needed 100 

Cash paid over to Harrison by Cleveland administration 110 

Cash register case 216 

Cash turned over 103 

Cat out of the bag, Shaw lets the 38 

Cement, foreign bought 127 

Chadwick, Cassie, goes to prison, but etc 174 

Changes, Republican tariff 35 

Chandler, Senator, on ship subsidies and high tariff 132 

Cheaper abroad, Republicans admit selling 45 

Cheaper abroad, shipbuilding material 52 

Cheaper abroad, steel rails 49 



INDEX. 309 



Cheapest iron and steel 44 

Cheapness of American goods I33 

Chinese Exclusion Act, vote in House on 281 

Citizenship, American 7 

Civil Service 8 

Civil War tariff to be temporary 33 

Claims, political. New York City Bank 175 

Clay, Henry, on who pays the tariff tax 159 

Cleveland, end of first administration 103 

Coal, free, resolution on 161 

Coal output in Pennsylvania increased 25 

Coal, production increased 25 

Coinage of gold and silver 302 

Comparison, tariffs 1789-1906 13-16 

Combines, trusts and 39 

Combinations and trusts unlawful 6 

Combination, Mr. Sherman on 161 

Commerce Act 1887, conference report on •. . 147 

Comments on Attorney-General's report 224 

Commerce Act 1887, history of 146 

Commercial failures, 1880-1903 107 

Commission, recommendations of 151 

Comparison of export and home prices 244 

Comparisons on labor 158 

Comparisons, some notable 25 

Condition of Treasury 1889, 1893, 1897 103 

Conference report on Commerce Act 1887 147 

Confess, Republican minority 98 

Constitution, Roosevelt wants to amend 224 

Constitutional guarantees 4 

Contract Labor Law, vote in House on 281 

Contract with trusts. Federal Government 4 

Control, Republicans vote to give trusts 127 

Copy of Foster bond plate order 105 

Corporations, industrial organized 39 

Cortelyou scandal 119, 126 

Cost of living compared 165 

Corrupt deal. New York City Bank, etc 175 

Corruption, Republican, and life insurance scandal 119 

Corruption fund, Parker's charge of 119 

Corruption fund, Parker's charge of, proven 122 

Cost of living higher 66 

Country, appeals to the 10 

Counsel for Government incompetent 218 

Counting cash, new system by Mr. Foster , . - . 96 

Courier-Journal (Louisville) on free building material 140 

Cramp, Mr. C. H., on ship subsidies and high tariff 131 

Criminal prosecutions 216 

Culberson amendment to Railroad Rate bill, vote in Senate on ...... . 271 

Cut, export prices 143 

D 

Decisions, Supreme Court 150 

Deficit in 1893 concealed by using national bank funds 112 



310 INDEX. 



Deficit confessed by Foster , 99 

Deficit (Republican), $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 98 

Deficits, how made 155 

Deficits, quarterly, official proof of Ill 

Deficits under the McKinley tariff 109 

Democratic party platform 1904 3 

Democratic platforms on tariffs and trusts 19 

Democratic policies, Roosevelt appropriates 145 

Democrats excluded 36 

Democrats first again 150 

Democrats first to introduce anti-trust bills 203 

Democrats first to recognize organized labor 178-188 

Democrats inherited discouraging conditions from Harrison admin- 
istration 112 

Democrat, why I am 11 

Democracy, fundamental principles of 10 

Departmental scandals 172 

Depew," Senator, on the power of fifty men 144 

Development, domestic 7 

Dingley tariff, the 36 

Dingley tariff law. Republican opinions on .^ 71 

Disaster, panic and, threatened under Harrison administration Ill 

Disaster, panic and, averted by using national bank funds 112 

Domestic development 7 

Dun's index numbers 68 

Duty, average 1821-1861 31 

Duly paid on hides, amount of 165 

E 

"Easy international morality," Roosevelt on 193 

Economy of administration 4 

Edmunds, Senator, on who pays the tariff tax 159 

Eight-hour law. Democrats first 178 

Eight-Hour Law, vote in House on 281 

Election of senators by the people 7 

Engines, bids for, for canal 131 

English prices 68 

Enterprise bank failure 173 

Estimated stock of gold and silver in the United States 298 

Estimate of tariff profits 43 

Estimates, ante-election 100 

Evarts, W. M., compares American and foreign labor 156 

Evidence, Babcock (Republican) gives 

Evidence at home 57 

Evidence from abroad 56 

Evidence from the Iron Age 54 

Evidence, further, produced 49 

Evidence of a protectionist 54 

Excess of exports under McKinley Tariff Act 114 

Excess of exports under Wilson Tariff Act 114 

Exchanging legal tender for gold, Mr. Foster in New York 108 

Executive usurpation 5 

Executive usurpation, ratifl^StlOft Pf vote in House on , , 290 



INDEX. 311 



Expenses, President's traveling, vote in House on 288 

Expenses, traveling, of the President, vote in Senate on / 278 

Export prices cheaper 44 

Export and home prices, comparison of 244 

Export prices, fail to answer as to 46 

Export prices cut 143 

Export prices of steel 42 

Exports of agricultural implements 59, 75 

Exports of manufactures 74 

Exports, excess of, under Wilson Tariff Act 114 

Exports, excess of, under McKinley Tariff Act 114 

Exports, imports and, under Wilson Tariff Act 114 

Exports, imports and, under McKinley Tariff Act 114 

Exports, gold, again resumed 108 

Exports of gold, remarkable 101 

Exports, United States gold coin 306 

Exposed, Steel Trust 141 

Extravagant appi-opriations. Fifty-ninth Congress 153 

F 

Fabrications, Republican, overtaken 107 

Facts, some about the panic of 1893 117 

Facts, historical 20 

Fail to answer as to export prices 46 

Failure, McKinley tariff a 92 

Failures, commercial, 1880-1903 107 

Failure, the Enterprise Bank 173 

Failure, the Walsh Bank 172 

Farmers and the tariff 165 

Farmers, taxes paid by 170 

Farmers and trust plundering 70 

Farming property, comparison with national wealth 165 

Farming property, increase in acreage 165 

Farewell advice, President Jackson's 34 

Farquhar, Mr. A. B., tariff a swindle, etc 59 

Favoritism to foreigners 43 

Federal Government contract with trusts 4 

Figures won't lie 66 

Fifty men, what they can do, Mr. Depew 144 

Fifty-ninth. Congress, extravagant appropriations of 153 

Financial stringency, Harrison administration Ill 

First tariff act, 1789 » 12 

First House resolution to investigate trusts 204 

First Senate resolution to investigate trusts 206 

Foreign and American labor, productivity of 156 

Foreign cement bought 127 

Foreign supplies purchased by Mr. Taft 127 

Foreigners, favoritism to 43 

Foreigners, Americans pay taxes for benefit of 66 

Foster confesses deficit 99 

Foster held up payment, etc 110 

Foster, "I made as good a statement in my report as I could" 97 

Foster's bond plate order . , , , , 105 



312 INDEX. 



Foster's plan, real significance of '. 97 

Foster, Mr., annual report 1892, loss of gold by export 102 

Foster, Mr., concealed deficit in 1893 by using national bank funds.. 112 

Foster, Mr., condemns Sherman Silver Law 97 

Foster, Mr., got the gold 109 

Foster, Mr., movement of gold 101 

Foster, Mr., more revenue needed -. 100 

Foster, Mr., and New York banks 108 

Foster, Mr., in New York exchanging legal tenders for gold 108 

Foster, Mr., omitted to tell 105 

Foster, Mr., "paddled along" 95, 98 

Foster, Secretary, before House Committee 93-95 

Foster, Secretary, held up payment of requisites 95, 97 

Free coal, resolution on 161 

Free hides, Mr. Blaine for 162 

Free list, the monopolized article 161 

Free lizards vs. free building material 139 

Free trade, ultimate, Garfield for 24 

Free trader and stand-patter, Mr. Roosevelt 189 

Further evidence produced 49 

Fundamental principles of Democracy .• 3, 10 

G 

Gage, Secretary of Treasury, and New York City Bank 175 

Garfield, Mr., on free salt 161 

Garfield, Mr., on tariff 23 

Garfield for ultimate free trade 24 

Gary, E. H., evidence shown to be unreliable 141 

Gear, Mr. John H., on tariff tax 160 

Gold, cash and, needed 100 

Gold exports again resumed 108 

Gold for legal tenders, Mr. Foster in New York exchanging 3 08 

Gold, remarkable exports of 101 

Gold and silver, estimated stock of 298 

Gold, production of 298 

Gold and silver statistics i . . 299 

Gold and silver, stock of 303 

Gold and silver, coinage of : 302 

Gold and silver, product of 304 

Gold, premium on 305 

Gold coin, net exports of . . 306 

Good for the soul 125 

Got the gold, Mr. Foster .- 109 

Government, counsel for, incompetent 218 

Government, Federal, contract with trusts 4 

Government partnership with monopolies and trusts 48 

Grievances, labor's 184-186 

Guarantees, constitutional 4 

Guild, Governor, is quoted 73 

H 

Habeas corpus proceedings 216 

Hale, Mr,, on free salt 161 



\ 

INDEX. 313 



Hale, Senator, on McKinley tariff 91 

Hamilton, Alexander, on who pays the tariff tax 159 

Harrison administration, Democrats inherited discouraging conditions 

from 112 

Harrison administration, financial stringency under Ill 

Havana, the, purchased at excessive price 129 

Havemeyer, Mr. Henry O., testifies 57 

Havemeyer, Mr., on forming the sugar trust 38 

Held up, payments of requisitions, by Mr. Foster 95, 97 

Hides, amount of duty paid on 165 

Hides, free, Mr. Blaine for 162 

High tariff lylled shipbuilding 26 

High tariff, ship subsidies and 131 

Historical facts 20 

History, tariff 20 

History of tariff changes 17 

History of the Commerce Act, 1887 146 

History, party on monopolies and trusts 200 

History, Railroad Law, 1906 150 

Home, evidence at 57 

Home prices, comparison of with export 244 

How the trusts have increased prices 70 



Imperialism 5 

Implements, agricultural, exported 75 

Imports and exports under Wilson Tariff Act 114 

Imports and exports under McKinley Tariff Act. 114 

Inaugural address, Jefferson 10 

Income tax plank 113 

Income tax, revenue from 113 

Incompetent counsel for Government 218 

Inconsistencies, Roosevelt's 195 

Increased, carpet manufacturing 27 

Increased cost of agricultural machinery 167 

Increased, labor and wages 20 

Increase in exports of manufacturers 74 

Increased, manufacture of paper 26 

Increased prices, how the trusts have 70 

Increased, postoflices 26 

Increased tariff rates, how 37 

Increase of wealth, Mr. Morrill 31 

Industrial commission report 45 

Industrial corporations organized 39 

Injunction suits 216 

Injunctions, Mr. Roosevelt on 187 

Insurance, life scandal and Republican scandal 119 

Intellectual conditions, revenue tariff promotes 26 

International steel' agreements 42 

Investigation "unconstitutional," Mr. Shaw 192 

Iron and steel cheapest 44 

Iron Age, evidence from 54 

Iron and steel, tariff on 116 



314 INDEX. 

Iron and steel, United States predominant in 133 

Iron production, revenue tariff promotes 27 

Istlimian Canal 7 

J 

Jackson, Andrew, on who pays the tariff tax 159 

Jackson, President, farewell address 34 

Jefferson's inaugural address 10 

Jefferson on property 144 

Jekyll and Hyde stand of "stand-patters" 137 

L 

Lahor, capital and 3 

Lahor combination case 216 

Labor's grievances 184-186 

Labor, organized, Mr. Roosevelt on 186 

Labor, organized. Democrats first to recognize 178-188 

Labor and wages increased 26 

Labor, table showing comparisons of 158 

La Follette's amendment to Railroad Rate bill, vote in Senate on . . . 272 
La Foirette's amendment regarding valuation of Railroad property, 

vote in Senate on 274 

La Follette's amendment as to employers' liability, vote in Senate on. 275 

Lamb, Henry W., testimony of 143 

Legal tenders for gold, Mr. Foster in New York exchanging 108 

Life insurance scandal. Republican corruption and 119 

Limited incomes, those with, plundered by tariff 66 

Lincoln, President, on war tariff 34 

List of anti-trust bills 203 

List of trusts in the United States 293 

Living, cost of, compared 165 

Living, cost of, higher 66 

Livingston, Hon. Leonidas, synopsis of speech 168 

Lizards, free, vs. free building material 139 

London Economist, index number 69 

Lovering, Mr., tariff on machinery should be reduced 76 

Low tariff increases manufacturing 25 

Low tariff, what it did for the country 24 

Lumber trust case 218 

M 

Machinery, agricultural, Canadian Tariff Commission on 168 

Machinery, agricultural, increased cost of 167 

Machinery, agricultural, sold cheaper abroad 58 

Machinery, tariff on should be reduced, Mr. Lovering 76 

Manufactures, American, sold cheaper abroad 58 

Manufactures, comparison of 165 

Manufactures, exports of 74 

Manufacture of paper increased *. . . . 26 

Manufacturers' Association acts 126 

Manufacturing, low tariff increases 25 

Marine, merchant 8 

Markets, open, a wise policy 127 



INDEX. 315 



Material, other, purchased 129 

Material for Panama Canal, vote in House on 285 

Matters affecting the President 197 

McKinley tarifif, disastrous effect of on wages 80-89 

McKinley tariff aids trusts 90-91 

McKinley tariff, Senator Hale on . 91 

McKinley tariff a failure 92 

McKinley tariff and Sherman law failed 97 

McKinley tariff, deficit under 109 

McKinley tariff, quarterly deficits under 110 

McKinley tariff, panic and disaster threatened under Ill 

McKinley Tariff Act, excess of exports under 114 

McKinley Tariff Act, values of imports under 114 

McKinley Tariff Act, receipts from customs, etc., under 115 

McKinley, President, states United States is predominant in Iron and 

steel 133 

McKinley tariff, operations of by months 252 

Mexico, the, purchased at excessive price 129 

Merchant marine 8 

Miller, W. A., Mr. Roosevelt on 188 

Mills, Senator, on American and foreign lahor 157 

Minority, Republican, confess 1»8 

Mint report, 1892 102 

Money, world's stock of 300 

Monopolies and trusts, party history on 200 

Monopolized article, free list, the 161 

Monopolies and trusts. Government partnership with 48 

Monroe doctrine 8 

Monroe doctrine, praised and perverted 194 

Monthly farm wages 231 

Movement of gold, Mr. Foster 101 

More revenue needed, Mr. Foster 100 

Morgan's amendment to Railroad Rate bill, vote In Senate on 272 

Morgan Anti-Trust Law 209 

Morrill, Senator, on ship subsidies and high tariff 132 

Morrill, Mr., on Increase of wealth 31 

Morrill, Mr., testifies 123 

Motive behind the big stick 193 

Mount, Governor, on revenue protection 161 

Mr. Foster, new system of counting cash 96 

N 

National banks and bank deposits 198 

National bank funds, panic and disaster averted by using 112 

National City Bank of New York, corrupt sale of New York Custom 

House 175 

Needed cash and gold 100 

Negligence of Attorney-General Miller 223 

Net exports United States gold coin 306 

New England charge 32 

New York banks and Mr. Foster 108 

New York Custom House, corrupt sale of 175-178 

New system of counting cash, Mr. Foster 96 

North Carolina, wages, 1904 , 3 , , , 231 



316 INDEX. 



O 

Official proof of quarterly deficits Ill 

Official wage figures, United States 240 

Ohio, wages in, 1904 234 

Omitted to tell, Mr. Foster 105 

One great cause 102 

Open markets a wise policy , 127 

Open markets, Mr. Shonts on purchase of supplies 130 

Open shop, Mr. Roosevelt on 188 

Operation of Treasury Department , 92-93 

Operations of McKinley tariff by months 252 

Organized labor, , Mr. Roosevelt on 186 

Organized labor. Democrats first to recognize 178-188 

Order, Mr, Foster's bond plate 105 

P 

Paddled along, paying Uncle Sam's debts. 95, 98 

Panic of 1857, Mr. Edward Atkinson on 32 

Panic and disaster averted by using national bank funds 112 

Panama Canal, bid for rails for 131 

Panama Canal, purchase of material for, vote in House on 285 

Panic-proof, is protection 21 

Panic of 1893, some facts about 117 

Panic and disaster threatened under Harrison administration Ill 

Panama supplies 126-129 

Paper, manufacture of increased 20 

Parker spoke the truth 123 

Parker's charge of corruption fund 119 

Parker's charge of corruption fund, proven 122 

Partnership, Government, with monopolies and trusts 48 

Party history on monopolies and trusts 200 

Party questions, yea and nay votes on 267 

Payment of requisites held up by Mr, Foster 95, 97 

Payne, Mr., on who pays the tariff tax 160 

Pennsylvania shared well 27 

Pennsylvania, wages in, 1904 234 

Pensions and our soldiers and sailors 8 

People, election of senators by 7 

Perkins, Mr., testifies 124 

Perpetual, protective tariffs not to be 18 

Philippine blackmail collections, vote in House on 290 

Pipe trust case 220 

Platform of the Democratic party, 1904 3 

Platform, Democratic, on tariffs and trusts 19 

Platform, Republican, on tariffs and trusts 19 

Plundering the farmers, trusts and 70 

Points, Hon. Leonidas F. Livingston 168 

"Political claims," New York City Bank 175 

Polygamy, condemnation of 8 

Population and wealth of United States 113 

Postoffices increased 26 

Predominant in iron and steel. United States is 133 

Premium of gold SOS 



INDEX. 317 



President, matters aflfecting the 19 T 

President, traveling expenses of, vote in Senate on 2T8 

President's traveling expenses, vote in House on 288 

Press, the New York Daily, on steel trust 136 

Pi'ices and wages 67 

Prices of boots and shoes 164 

Prices, export, cheaper 44 

Prices, export, cut 143 

Price of tools raised 143 

Prices, trusts raise 38 

Prices, wholesale, 1897-1905 229 231 

Prices, comparison of export with home 244 

Principles, fundamental of Democracy 3, 10 

Product of gold and silver 304 

Productivity of American and foreign labor 156 

Profits, estimate, of tariff 43 

Property, Jefferson on 144 

Proof, the 122 

Proof, official, of quarterly deficits Ill 

Proposed ship subsidy legislation 134 

Prosecuting ( ?) the trusts 224 

Prosecution of the trusts a record of masterly inefficiency 226-228 

Protection, is it panic proof 21 

Protection, remove, Governor Mount 161 

Protectionist, a, evidence of 54 

Purchased, other material 129 

Production of gold 298 

Protective tariff not to be perpetual , 18 

Purchase of material for Panama Canal, vote in House on 285 

Pure Food Law, vote in Senate on 267 

Q 

Quarterly deficits under McKinley tariff • 110 

Quarterly deficits, official proof of Ill 

R 

Race question, schools and 9 

Rails for Panama Canal, bid for 131 

Railroad combinations, against 210 

Railroad combination case 217 

Railroad building flourished 26 

Railroad employees, wages of 65 

Railroad Law, 1906, history 150 

Raise price of tools 143 

Ratification of Executive usurpations, vote in House on 290 

Reagan bill, vote on 207 

Real significance of Foster's plan 97 

Receipts and expenditures, 1892 99 

Receipts and expenditures, 1893 99 

Receipts and expenditures, 1894 100 

Receipts from customs, etc., under Wilson Tariff Act 115 

Receipts from customs, etc., under McKinley Tariff Act 115 

Reciprocity 8 



318 INDEX. 

Reciprocity defeated 38 

Recommendations of the commission 151 

Redemptions 109 

Redemption of notes 305 

Reduce duty, Senator Sherman 162 

Relief refund to San Francisco 138 

Remarkable exports of gold 101 

Remove protection, Governor Mount 161 

Report, Foster's, "as good as I could" 97 

Report, Industrial Commission 45 

Report, mint, 1892 102 

Report, Treasury, December 1, 1890 Ill 

Report, June 12, 1890, action on 212 

Republican administration 9 

Republican corruption and life insurance scandal 119. 

Republican deficit $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 98 

Republican fabrication overtaken 107 

Republican minority confess , 98 

Republican opinions on the Dingley TarifE Law 71 

Republican platform on tariffs and trusts 19 

Republican tariff changes 35 

Republicans admit selling cheaper abroad 45 

Republicans commend tariff, 1846 31 

Republicans vote to give trusts control 127 

Republicans, what they say on tariff 73 

Requisitions, payment of, held up by Mr. Foster 95, 97 

Revenue from income tax 113 

Revenue tariff, steel industry born under 27 

Revenue tariff promotes iron production 27 

Richardson, Mr., on ship subsidy legislation 134 

Roach, John, on ship subsidies and high tariff 131 

Rogue's gallery, Mr. Roosevelt's 186 

Roosevelt appropriates Democratic policies 145 

Roosevelt, asphalt trust and Venezuela 194 

Roosevelt, big military and naval force 193 

Roosevelt on "easy international morality" 193 

Roosevelt favors big corporations 193 

Roosevelt a free trader and stand-patter, etc 189 

Roosevelt on injunctions 187 

Roosevelt, Monroe doctrine praised and perverted 194 

Roosevelt on W. A. Miller 188 

Roosevelt on open shop 188 

Roosevelt on organized labor 186 

Roosevelt on the shadow of our destiny 193 

Roosevelt, subsidized merchant marine 193 

Roosevelt wanted to amend the Constitution 224 

Roosevelt's administration, Bryan on 145 

Roosevelt's denials false 123 

Roosevelt's inconsistencies 195 

Roosevelt's "Rogue's gallery" 186 

Roosevelt's denial as to corruption fund 120 

Roosevelt's denial as to corruption fund proven false 122 

Rucker, Mr., on the farmer and the tariff 165 

Russian telephones, Americans to install 143 



INDEX. 319 



Salt, free, Mr. Garfield on 161 

Salt, free, Mr. Hale on 161 

Salt industry 75 

San Francisco, lizards free but building material taxed 139 

San Francisco, relief of, refused 138 

Sauerbeck's prices index 69 

Scandals, departmental , 172 

Scandal, life insurance, and Republican scandal 119 

Scandal, purchase of ships at excessive price 129 

Scandal, the Cortelyou 119-126 

Schwab, Mr., testifies 57 

Schools and race question 9 

Senators, election of by people 7 

Sequel, what it proves 123 

Serious trouble 101 

"Shadow of our destiny," Roosevelt on 193 

Shaw lets the cat out of the bag 38 

Shaw, Secretary, admits it 47 

Shaw, Mr., "investigation unconstitutional" 192 

Sherman, Senator, when trusts and combinations started 34 

Sherman silver law condemned by Mr, Foster 97 

Sherman Law, McKinley tariff and, failed 97 

Sherman, Senator, on ship subsidies and high tariff 132 

Sherman, Mr., on "combination" 161 

Sherman, Senator, on who pays the tariff tax 159 

Sherman, Senator, "reduce duty" 162 

Sherman's plan 204 

Sherman resolution, the 206 

Sherman anti-trust law, Supreme Court divided on 211 

Shipbuilding, high tariff killed 26 

ehip subsidies and high tariff 131 

Ship subsidy legislation proposed 134 

Ship "Subsidy bill, vote in Senate on 268 

Ships purchased at excessive price 129 

Shipbuilding material cheaper abroad 52 

Shoes and boots, prices of 164 

Shoes, tax on hides is a tax on 163 

Shonts, Mr., on purchase of materials in open market 130 

Silver, small coin on hand 104 

Silver and gold, estimated stock of 298 

Silver and gold statistics 299 

Silver and gold, stock of 303 

Silver and gold, coinage of 302 

Silver and gold, product of 304 

Small silver coin on hand 104 

Some facts about the panic of 1893 117 

Spight, Mr., on steel trust and ship subsidies 135 

Stand-patters, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 137 

Stand-patters, attitude toward relief of San Francisco 138 

Statehood for territories 7 

Statehood bill, Foraker amendment, vote in Senate on 269 

Statehood bill, vote in House on 279 



320 INDEX. 



Statistics on wages 231-243 

Statistics, gold and silver 299 

Steel industry born under revenue tariff 27 

Steel trust analyzed 41 

Steel, export prices of 42 

Steel agreements, international 42 

Steel rails, 40 per cent, cheaper abroad 49 

Steel, iron and, tariff on \ 116 

Steel, iron and, United States predominant m 133 

Steel Trust and ship subsidies, Mr. Spight on 135 

Steel Trust, New York Daily Press on 136 

Steel rails, prices "fixed" 141 

Steel Trust exposed t 141 

Steel bought cheaper abroad % 143 

Stock of gold and silver 300 

Stone, Senator, on purchase of ships at excessive price 129 

Stringency, financial, unuer Harrison administration Ill 

Subsidized merchant marine, Roosevelt on 193 

Sugar Trust, Mr. Havemeyer on farming 38 

Sugar Trust case 218 

Sugar Trust case, negligence of Attorney-General Miller lost 223 

Supplies, Panama '. 126, 129 

Supreme Court, divided on Sherman Anti-Trust Law 211 

Supreme Court decisions 1 50 

Swindle, tariff, Mr. A. B. Farquhar .^ 59 

T 

Taft, Mr., purchases foreign supplies 127 

Tariff, the 5 

Tariff Act 1789, first 12-13 

Tariffs, 1789-1906, comparison of i 13-16 

Tariff rates, average, 1789-1905 17 

Tariff changes, history of 17 

Tariffs, protective, not to be perpetual 18 

Tariff and trusts 19 

Tariff and trusts. Democratic platforms on 19 

Tariffs and trusts. Republican platform on 19 

Tariff history 20 

Tariff 1857 21 

Tariff of 1846, Mr. Blaine on 21-22 

Tariff, David A. Wells on 22-23 

Tariff, Mr. Garfield on 23 

Tariff, a war measure 24 

Tariff low, what it did for the country. 24 

Tariff low, increases manufacturing 25 

Tariff high, killed shipbuilding 26 

Tariff, revenue, promotes intellectual conditions 26 

Tariff, revenue, promotes iron production 27 

Tariff votes on 1789-1883 28-30 

Tariff of 1846, more Republicans commend 31 

Tariff of 1846, Senator Wilson on 32 

Tariff, Civil War to be temporary 33 

Tariff of 1857 commended Si3 

Tariff changes. Republican 35 



INDEX. 321 



Tariff law, the Dingley 36 

Tariff rates, how Increased 37 

Tariff rates, 100 per cent, or more 37 

Tariff footers trusts 39 

Tariff products disguised 41 

Tariff profits, estimate of 43 

Tariff a swindle on the farmer, Mr. A. B, Farquhar 59 

Tariff, how it affects wages and incomes 64 

Tariff, what Republicans say on 73 

Tariff on machinery should be reduced, Mr. Lovering 76 

Tariff, McKInley, disastrous effect of on wages 80-89 

Tariff, McKInley, aids trusts 90-91 

Tariff, McKinley, Senator Hale on 91 

Tariff, McKinley, a failure 92 

Tariff, McKinley, and Sherman law failed 97 

Tariff, McKinley, deficits under 109 

Tariff, McKinley, quarterly deficits under 110 

Tariff, McKInley, panic and disaster threatened under Ill 

Tariff on iron and steel 116 

Tariff, high, ship subsidies and 131 

Tariff tax, who pays It 159 

Tariff tax. Senator Sherman on who pays the 159 

Tariff tax, Andrew Jackson on who pays the 159 

Tariff tax, Henry Clay on who pays the 159 

Tariff tax, John Quincy Adams on who pays the 159 

Tariff tax, Alexander Hamilton on who pays the 159 

Tariff tax. Senator Edmunds on who pays the 159 

Tariff tax, Mr. Payne on who pays the 160 

Tariff tax, Mr. John H. Gear on who pays the 160 

Tariff, the farmers and 165 

Tariff, agriculture and, Hon. L. F. Livingston 168 

Tariff, effect of on rural wealth 169 

Tariff, articles bearing 100 per cent, or more 248 

Tax on hides is a tax on shoes 163 

Tax, income, plank 113 

Tax, Income, revenue from 113 

Taxes paid by farmers 170 

Telephones, Americans to install Russian 143 

Temporary, Civil War tariff to be 33 

Territories, statehood for 7 

Thimmel, Mr., testifies 124 

Trade, balance of against us 101 

Trans-Missouri Freight Association case 219 

Traveling expenses of the President, vote In Senate on 278 

Traveling expenses, President's, vote in House on 288 

Tools, American, cheaper in Germany , . 60 

Tools, price of raised 143 

Treasury, condition of, 1889, 1893, 1897 10? 

Treasury Department, operations of 92-93 

Treasury report, December 1, 1890 Ill 

Trouble, serious 101 

Trusts, Federal Government contract with 4 

Trusts and unlawful combinations q 

Trusts, tariff and 19 



322 INDEX. 



Trusts, tariff and, Democratic platform on 19 

Trusts, tariff and, Republican platform on 19 

Trusts and combinations, when started 34 

Trusts and combines 39 

Trusts fostered by the tariff 39 

Trusts raise prices 38 

Trusts unincorporated 40 

Trust, a typical 41 

Trust, Steel, analyzed 41 

Trusts and monopolies, Government partnership with 48 

Trust plundering, farmers and 70 

Trusts aided by McKinley tariff .90-91 

Trusts, Republicans vote to give control 127 

Trust, Steel, exposed 141 

Trusts, the. Senator Washburn on i62 

Trusts and monopolies, party history on 200 

Trusts, first House resolution to investigate 204 

Trust, first Senate resolution to investigate 206 

Trusts, prosecuting ( ?) the 224 

Truslts, prosecution of, a record of masterly inefficiency 226-228 

Trusts, list of in the United States 293 

Typical trust, a '. '. 41 

U 

Ultimate free trade, Garfield 24 

Unincorporated trusts 40 

United States is predominant in iron and steel 133 

United States official wage figures 240 

Unlawful combinations and trusts , 6 

Usurpation, Executive 5 

Usurpations, ratification of executive, vote in House on 290 

V 

Value of imports and exports under Wilson Tariff Act. 114 

Value of imports and exports under McKinley Tariff Act 114 

Venezuela and asphalt trust, Roosevelt 194 

Vote on anti-trust act of 1890. 213 

Vote on tariffs, 1789-1883i 28-30 

Vote in Senate on Pure Food Law 267 

Vote in Senate on Ship Subsidy bill 268 

Vote in Senate on Ship Subsidy bill (Foraker amendment) 269 

Vote in Senate on Bailey amendment to Railroad Rate bill 270 

Vote in Senate on Culberson amendment to Railroad Rate bill 271 

Vote in Senate on La Follette's amendment to Railroad Rate bill.. 272 

Vote in Senate on Morgan's amendment to Railroad Rate bill 272 

Vote in Senate on La Follette's amendment to Railroad Rate bill .... 274 

Vote in Senate on La Follette's amendment to Railroad Rate bill... 275 

Vote in Senate on Aldrich resolution, Panama supplies 276 

Vote in Senate on Bacon's amendment, Panama supplies 277 

Vote in Senate on President's traveling expenses 278 

Vote in House on Statehood bill ^ , 279 

Vote in House on Eight-Hour law 281 

Vote in House on Contract Labor law 281 



INDEX. 323 



Vote in House on Chinese Exclusion Act 281 

Vote in House on purchase of material for Panama Canal 285 

Vote in House on President's traveling expenses 288 

Vote in House on ratification of executive usurpation 290 

W 

Wages, labor and, increased 26 

Wages and incomes, how affected by tariff 64 

Wages of railroad employees 65 

Wages, prices and 67 

Wages, disastrous effect of McKinley tariff on 80-89 

Wages, statistics on 231-243 

Wages, monthly, farm 231 

Wages in North Carolina, 1904 231 

Wages in Ohio, 1904 232 

Wages in Pennsylvania, 1904 234 

Wages in Alabama, 1904 239 

Wage figures, official. United States 240 

Wall Street News, extract from 125 

Walsh Bank failure 172 

Wannamaker, Mr., testifies 125 

War tariff. President Lincoln on 34 

War measure, tariff a ^ 24 

Washburn, Senator, on the trusts 162 

Waterways 4 

Watch Trust sells cheaper abroad 60 

Wealth, Mr. Morrill on increase of 31 

Wealth, population and, of United States 113 

Wells, David A., on tariff 22-23 

What we sell abroad 171 

Whiskey Trust cases 216 

Wholesale prices of boots and shoes 164 

Wholesale prices, 1897-1905 229-231 

Why I am a Democrat 11 

Wilmot, Mr. F. A., on monopolies and trusts 48 

Wilson, Senator, on tariff of 1846 32 

Wilson Tariff Act, values of imports under 114 

Wilson Tariff Act, excess of exports under 114 

Wilson Tariff Act, receipts from customs, etc., under 115 

Windom, Mr., annual report, 1890 101 

World's crops, our farmers share of 171 

World's stock of money 300 

Wright, Commissioner, on American and foreign labor 158 

Y 

Yea and Nay votes on party questions 267 



DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE 

CAMPAIGN OF 1906 



SEIfATE MEMBERS 



RKANSAS — James II. Berr^-. 
LOKiDA — J. 1'. Taliiifen'o. 
)AHO — Fred T. Dubois. 
issouia — Wm. J. Stone.. 

V I EG IK I A- 



-Tbos. 



Montana — Wm. A. Clark, 
Nevada — Francis G. Newlands. 
Tennessee — Edward W. Carmack. 
Texas — Chas. A. Culberson. 
S. Martin. 



HOUSE MEMBERS 



jABAMA — John L. Burnett. 
RizoNA — Marcus A. Smitli. 
KKANSAS — John S. Little. 
^LiFOKNiA — James- F. English. 
)LORADO — John F. Shafroth. 
)NNECTICUT- — Henry F. Mooney, 
ELAWAEE — Willard Saul^bury. 
[STRICT OF Columbia — James L. 
Norris. 

:.0EiDA — Frank Clark. 
50EGIA — J. M. Griggs. 
LiNOis — Henry T. Rainey. 
:diana — Wm. T. Zenor. 
DiAN Tkeeitoey — C. H. Tulley, 
wa — Walter H. Dewey. 
4.NSAS — A. M. Jackson. 
BNTUCKY — Frank A. Hopkins. 
;)UisiANA — liobt. F. Broussard. 
AiNE — Oliver Otis. 
aeyland — John Gill, Jr. 
ASSACHUSETTS — John A. Keliher. 
iCHiGAN — Frank H. Ilosford. 
ississiPPi — E. J. Bowers. 
issouEi — James T. Lloyd, 
EBEASKA — G. M. Hitchcock. 



Xl;vada — C. D, Van Duzer, 
Ni':w Jkesey — A, L, McDermott. 
New Hampshiee — Geo, L, 

Danforth. 
New Mexico — O. N. Marron. 
New Yoek — Wm. H. Ryan. 
North Carolina — ^Wm. W. Kitchin. 
North Dakota — Willis A. Joy. 
Ohio — H. C. Garber. 
Oklahoma — Roy E. Stafford. 
Oregon — John E. Lathrop. 
Pennsylvania— M. C. L. Kline 
Rhode Island — D. L. D. Granger. 
South Carolina — David B. 

Finley. 
South Dakota— C. Boyd Barrett. 
Tennessee — John W. Gaines. 
Texas — Wm. R. Smith. 
Utah— Henry W. King 
Vermont — Morris F, Atkins. 
ViEGiNiA — Robt. G. Southall, 
Washington — Bo Sweeney, 
West Vieginia — Thos. B. Davis.- 
WiscONSiN — Chas. H. Weisse. 
Wyoming — J. E. Osborne. 



CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE 



E. J. Bowers, Chairman. 

F. G. Newlands. 
Jas. T. Lloyd. 
W. H. Ryan. 
Henry T. Rainet. 
D. E. Finley. 
Chas. H. Weisse. 
John A. Kelihee. 
Frank Clark. 
Fred T. Dubois. 
W. R. Smith. 



1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 809 796 5 



